Re: Dear Mary...

[Krztalizer]

You win the "Farthest Offtopic Posting" award for 2004. Your prize is 22,807
viagra/get-rich-quick emails over the next three months.

[Krztalizer]

>
>YEah, reminds me of the days when we were all "SEPERATE BUT EQUAL"... ,
>when "those XXXXX could still go to their own schools and take their own
>busses...".

Go grind that ax someplace else - this has nothing to do with r.a.m. and trying
to convince folks that gay and lesbians are their own "race" is just plain
stupid.


>How was it then that they were "second class" ???

Bright one, no one here suggested you have to ride "busses", no one here called
you names, in fact, you are the cross-posting nit trying very hard to get a
flame war started, by insulting as many folks as you can. _Great_ way to make
your point.

<stuffing you down into the bit bin> Later, dude. Come back when you want to
debate like a grown up.

[Krztalizer]

>
>Bush said 'God' told him to go for Iraq....
>(Or get Saddam, or whatever the phrase was)
>
>And people belived him !!!
>
>That just blows my mind, sorry can't understand that at all.

Personally, I would rather have a spiritual leader than a religous leader, and
when it comes to global statesmanship, I actually prefer neither, or a man that
keeps his faith in a particular set of teachings private to his circle of
family - I don't see why Reagan's belief in astrology was frowned upon but Bush
II is commended for sounding as pulpity as he can manage. A deeply spiritual
leader is not a problem to me - but the same type of 100% surity in his
religion is a trait that both Bin Laden and Bush share. Bottom line: when you
think "God" *truly* supports your views and thinks less of the "unbelievers"/
heathens _______ fill in the blank, I think it should be pointed out that every
other religion thinks the same. Someone is wrong, or God is a sadist. I
prefer to think that at a minimum, 50% of humanity has guessed wrongly in
regards to "God".

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"


>Take comfort. All of the people didn't believe him.....the more than half of
>the
>country that didn't vote for his election in 2000 are now convinced that they
>had it right the first time.
>
>George Z.
>
Make up your mind, you can't have it botheways. It's either "all of the people
didn't believe him" or "the more than half of
>the country that didn't vote for his election in 2000."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Walker]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> They are prevented from marrying in the way theiy desire as
>> consenting adults.
>>
>
> They wish to marry persons of the same sex. That is not possible.

Of course it is, it happens in other places right now.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Walker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course it is, it happens in other places right now.
>

It's not possible anywhere.

[Krztalizer]

The end result to all of this is that any governmental perks given to
"traditional married couples" will be dismantled and I have to agree with it as
a logical progression of the current situation.

TMC's get certain perks, such as tax breaks and survivor benefits, based on
thousands-of-years-old religious ideas - the next step is to alter the idea
into a modern partnership, open to all and with matching benefits to all. What
it won't be any longer is a *marriage* in the traditional sense. The evolution
of this will continue, as next, single people will decide they don't want
married folks to get additional benefits that they themselves do not earn. No
amount of constitutional one-liner alterations will control this natural
progression and in the end, a hundred years or so down the road, our great
grandkids are going to wonder what was so special about the quaint old notion
of "marriage".

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Steve Walker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Of course it is, it happens in other places right now.
> >
>
> It's not possible anywhere.

I believe that you have confused what is possible with what may be
desirable. While you may believe that gay marriage is not desirable. It is
undeniably possible.

A parallel can be drawn between a state of war and gay marriage as war may
not be desirable, in this world it is most eminently and quite apparently
possible.

Try to remember this differentiation between that which is desirable and
that which is possible.

Snark

[Big Bush Supporter]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:11:34 GMT, in alt.support.marriage, "Steven P.
McNicoll"
> > arranged some electrons, so they looked
like this :
>
> ...
> ... "Steve Walker" > wrote in message
> ... ...
> ... >
> ... > Of course it is, it happens in other places right now.
> ... >
> ...
> ... It's not possible anywhere.
>
>
> It is in Belgium and in the Netherlands.

and in Canada, which is full of french lefties.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Steve Walker"
> wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> They are prevented from marrying in the way theiy desire as
> >> consenting adults.
> >>
> >
> > They wish to marry persons of the same sex. That is not possible.
>
> Of course it is, it happens in other places right now.
>
>

Marriage definitions vary even among religionsl, and certainly among
cultures. A libertarian view might be that the proper role of
government is to register civil contracts, and leave the definition of
marriage to churches that perform it.

From personal experience, I wish it was as hard to get married as it is
to get divorced.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is in Belgium and in the Netherlands.
>

Actually, it isn't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I believe that you have confused what is possible with what may be
> desirable. While you may believe that gay marriage is not desirable. It
is
> undeniably possible.
>
> A parallel can be drawn between a state of war and gay marriage as war may
> not be desirable, in this world it is most eminently and quite apparently
> possible.
>
> Try to remember this differentiation between that which is desirable and
> that which is possible.
>

I have confused nothing. Marriage between persons of the same sex is
impossible.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > I believe that you have confused what is possible with what may be
> > desirable. While you may believe that gay marriage is not desirable.
It
> is
> > undeniably possible.
> >
> > A parallel can be drawn between a state of war and gay marriage as war
may
> > not be desirable, in this world it is most eminently and quite
apparently
> > possible.
> >
> > Try to remember this differentiation between that which is desirable and
> > that which is possible.
> >
>
> I have confused nothing. Marriage between persons of the same sex is
> impossible.

You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous usage of the language.

Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and therefore may change
in accordance with whatever is acceptable within the many multitudes of
social, political and religious institutions of the world which are many
more than most people fully comprehend. Within that framework, marriage
between two individuals of the same sex is eminently a possibility.

Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an absolute
impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among the many and
diverse social-political-religious institutions of the world or that any
particular form of behavior by homo sapiens sapiens is impossible is as
close to impossible as one may find in the world.

Snark

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:48:04 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It is in Belgium and in the Netherlands.
>>
>
>Actually, it isn't.

Well, you're full of it.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19425787

http://www.rnw.nl/society/html/main010815.html

http://www.equality.org.za/news/2003/01/31bmar.htm

So, you are lying, or just ignorant.

We can add Canada to the list.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous usage of the language.
>
> Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and therefore may
change
> in accordance with whatever is acceptable within the many multitudes of
> social, political and religious institutions of the world which are many
> more than most people fully comprehend. Within that framework, marriage
> between two individuals of the same sex is eminently a possibility.
>
> Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an
absolute
> impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among the many and
> diverse social-political-religious institutions of the world or that any
> particular form of behavior by homo sapiens sapiens is impossible is as
> close to impossible as one may find in the world.
>

You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> In your neck of woods, maybe.
>

Everywhere.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, you're full of it.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19425787
>
> http://www.rnw.nl/society/html/main010815.html
>
> http://www.equality.org.za/news/2003/01/31bmar.htm
>
> So, you are lying, or just ignorant.
>
> We can add Canada to the list.
>

They can declare that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, but
that won't make it so.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous usage of the
language.
> >
> > Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and therefore may
> change
> > in accordance with whatever is acceptable within the many multitudes of
> > social, political and religious institutions of the world which are many
> > more than most people fully comprehend. Within that framework,
marriage
> > between two individuals of the same sex is eminently a possibility.
> >
> > Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an
> absolute
> > impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among the many and
> > diverse social-political-religious institutions of the world or that any
> > particular form of behavior by homo sapiens sapiens is impossible is as
> > close to impossible as one may find in the world.
> >
>
> You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.
>
No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
social-political-religious framework it will be whatever any human
social-political-religious group can come up with.

You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly illiterate.

Snark

[Steven P. McNicoll]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
> social-political-religious framework it will be whatever any human
> social-political-religious group can come up with.
>

It doesn't work that way.


>
> You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly illiterate.
>

I'm neither.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
> > social-political-religious framework it will be whatever any human
> > social-political-religious group can come up with.
> >
>
> It doesn't work that way.
>
>
> >
> > You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly illiterate.
> >
>
> I'm neither.
>
You've proven that you are probably both. Try reading a dictionary and
studying a little anthropology. If you haven't the time or money for those,
then I suggest that you join the US Army, and then serve in at least the
following locales, Europe, Asia, East Africa and West Africa preferrably in
the following countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, Mongolia, Nepal,
Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, Mozambique,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and anywhere else in those regions.
DO NOT LIVE ON BASE IN ANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES! Live on the economy and get
to know the peoples and customs.

Perhaps after you've recieved an education and have had to learn the English
language sufficiently well to learn other languages, come back and we'll see
if you still hold your rather stilted ideas.

Snark

[Steven P. McNicoll]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> You've proven that you are probably both. Try reading a
> dictionary and studying a little anthropology.
>

Okey dokey.

mar·riage (mrj)
n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in
mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).
4. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in
pinochle.

[B2431]

>From: Douglas Berry

>
>Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:18:51 -0800, a stranger
>called by some "David Koski" > came
>forth and told this tale in us.military.army
>
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:40:11 +0000, Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>>> They are prevented from marrying in the way theiy desire as consenting
>>> adults.
>>
>>And if one should desire to marry ten consenting wives? Or a consenting
>>cow? Ha!
>
>As long as everyone agrees, I have no problem with it.
>
>A cow?

Yeah, but when you kiss the cow-bride...never mind.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Grantland]

" > wrote:


>Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an absolute
>impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among the many and
>diverse social-political-religious institutions of the world or that any
>particular form of behavior by homo sapiens sapiens is impossible is as
>close to impossible as one may find in the world.
>
>Snark
>
You should just see what the homo sapiens get up to here in Africa!

wally

[B2431]

>From: (Grantland)

>WOW! Do you really whack off while a half-dozen burly negroes perform
>bukkake on your wifey's willing face? Pretty sick I would say. Your
>site needs more pics btw,
>
>Grantland

Just as a matter of curiosity how long have you had erotic fantasies of black
males?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:52:38 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Well, you're full of it.
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19425787
>>
>> http://www.rnw.nl/society/html/main010815.html
>>
>> http://www.equality.org.za/news/2003/01/31bmar.htm
>>
>> So, you are lying, or just ignorant.
>>
>> We can add Canada to the list.
>>
>
>They can declare that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, but
>that won't make it so.

Of course not. But since marriage is a legal state, those governments
can redefine it as they wish.

Before 1967 marriage between the races was illegal in many states.
Society didn't collapse when those marriages were made legal. Society
will survive this.

People like you? Civilization will leave you in the dust.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Cub Driver]

>TMC's get certain perks, such as tax breaks and survivor benefits, based on
>thousands-of-years-old religious ideas

Not really, given that the income tax in the U.S. is less than a
century old.

The idea wasn't religious but societal: married couples raise children
and need all the help they can get.

The funny thing is that the old fix (two individuals can share one
income) got fixed about fifty years ago so as to lessen the
discrimination against single individuals, with the result that now
that most married individuals are working, they pay more taxes than if
they were single.

About the only boon remaining for the marrieds is that they are not
subject to the $11,000 gift limitation that the rest of society is
supposed to be guided by. As John Kerry has demonstrated, your wife
can share her wealth with you without restriction.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course not. But since marriage is a legal state, those governments
> can redefine it as they wish.
>

Why is marriage a legal state? What gives government the authority to
redefine it? Is marriage not older than government?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do a bit of research before telling the world how ignorant you are.
>

That's good advice. You should have heeded it yourself.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:30:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Of course not. But since marriage is a legal state, those governments
>> can redefine it as they wish.
>
>Why is marriage a legal state? What gives government the authority to
>redefine it? Is marriage not older than government?

Not really. People did pair up, but the legal concept of being joined
in the eyes of the law is relatively recent.

There are two kinds of marriage: civil and religious.

Civil marriage is what you get when you file for the license, then
sign it along with the person who conducted the ceremony and a couple
of witnesses. You can be married by anyone who registers with the
state. My sister is getting married next week, and my brother will be
performing the ceremony. All it takes is the license fee (about $80
in my county) and being able to show that you understand the rights
and obligations of marriage.

Religious marriage is what you get in your church or synagogue. It is
separate from civil marriage, but the two are often taken care of in
the same ceremony. It doesn't matter is you have a full wedding mass
conducted by an Archbishop.. the state doesn't recognize the wedding
until that slip of paper is signed.

Since marriage does grant rights, it is unconstitutional to deny those
rights without due process of law (14th Amendment, Section 1) Here in
California, Article I, Section 31 of the State Constitution forbids
discrimination in public contracts, which includes marriage.

Now, I'd like you to explain what has happened to your life now that
over 3,000 gay couples have been married in San Francisco. Are you
married? I am, for almost 13 years now. My marriage is still solid
as a rock. What harm is being done? Explain it to me.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not really. People did pair up, but the legal concept of being joined
> in the eyes of the law is relatively recent.
>
> There are two kinds of marriage: civil and religious.
>
> Civil marriage is what you get when you file for the license, then
> sign it along with the person who conducted the ceremony and a couple
> of witnesses. You can be married by anyone who registers with the
> state. My sister is getting married next week, and my brother will be
> performing the ceremony. All it takes is the license fee (about $80
> in my county) and being able to show that you understand the rights
> and obligations of marriage.
>
> Religious marriage is what you get in your church or synagogue. It is
> separate from civil marriage, but the two are often taken care of in
> the same ceremony. It doesn't matter is you have a full wedding mass
> conducted by an Archbishop.. the state doesn't recognize the wedding
> until that slip of paper is signed.
>
> Since marriage does grant rights, it is unconstitutional to deny those
> rights without due process of law (14th Amendment, Section 1) Here in
> California, Article I, Section 31 of the State Constitution forbids
> discrimination in public contracts, which includes marriage.
>

Who is being denied marriage?


>
> Now, I'd like you to explain what has happened to your life now that
> over 3,000 gay couples have been married in San Francisco.
>

By "gay couples" I assume you mean same-sex couples. No same-sex couples
have been married in San Francisco. Marriage requires persons of the
opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex
just as heterosexuals are. No rights are being denied to anyone.


>
> Are you married?
>

Yup.


>
> I am, for almost 13 years now. My marriage is
> still solid as a rock. What harm is being done? Explain it to me.
>

Harm is not the issue.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Of course not. But since marriage is a legal state, those governments
> > can redefine it as they wish.
> >
>
> Why is marriage a legal state? What gives government the authority to
> redefine it? Is marriage not older than government?
>
>

Excellent point, for a change. Yes, marriage is older than government.
Coming-of-age rituals, such as circumcision, First Communion,
confirmation, etc., are older than government. Becoming a recognized
cleric is older than government.

Religions do very nicely managing these rites on their own. The rules of
one religion may very much conflict with those of another, such as
Islamic polygamy, State Shinto obligation, etc. To a large extent, we
leave these things up to the religious leadership.

I actually don't have a problem if, according to the teachings of Islam
or of the older traditions of Latter-Day Saints, people want to enter
into a religiously-approved plural marriage. I'd simply like the
governemt to record the marriage and the associated property,
inheritance, parental control, medical surrogacy rules.

In other words, people can have religiously defined marriages, plus
civilly defined unions/contracts. Since in the US we have freedom not to
be in a religion, logically, the state should be able to record the
legal details of a civil union.

But you keep repeating a religious definition, but a definition that
applies only in specific religions. I will ask specifically: the Koran
allows, with conditions, a marriage to be defined between a man and up
to four wives. By your reasoning, isn't that a religiously defined
marriage? Or are you saying that only SOME religions get to define
marriage?

[~Nins~]

wrote:
|| "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
|| message
|| hlink.net...
|||
||| " > wrote in message
||| ink.net...
||||
|||| You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous usage of the
|||| language.
||||
|||| Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and therefore
|||| may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable within the
|||| many multitudes of social, political and religious institutions of
|||| the world which are many more than most people fully comprehend.
|||| Within that framework, marriage between two individuals of the
|||| same sex is eminently a possibility.
||||
|||| Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an
|||| absolute impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among
|||| the many and diverse social-political-religious institutions of
|||| the world or that any particular form of behavior by homo sapiens
|||| sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one may find in
|||| the world.
||||
|||
||| You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.
|||
|| No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
|| social-political-religious framework it will be whatever any human
|| social-political-religious group can come up with.

Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to the Old Testament
(Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made specific reference to the act of
same gender sex and the union of two, which would invalidate the same-sex
marriage issue. Marriage is a covenant involving God and two people
(man-woman). The Church recently addressed the issue with a 12-page
document of considerations which *cited various biblical references*. Below
is the link to this document which also mentions legislators when voting on
the issue. "When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual
unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the
Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and
publicly and to vote against it." In some religious frameworks (churches),
the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an impossibility.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75


||
|| You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly illiterate.

It is a union meant for two people of different gender. Homosexuality is
not something I agree with and never will agree with it. However, if that's
what they have decided for themselves and if it brings them happiness in
some way, while I might voice my opposition to their act, I would not be
unkind to them for continuing it. Just as I would not be unkind I would
never condone/accept a gay marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned
religious framework).

Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant for male-female, is
naive then I guess that makes the inspired word of God naive? It has
nothing to do with naivety or illiteracy, but more to do with values and
beliefs built from a foundation that has its roots in the Bible (the
inspired word of God), at least in the religious framework anyhow.

This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not now. I prefer to go
with what's been in place for a couple thousand years or more. ;) Does that
make me one or both, naive or illiterate?

Back to my break. Toodles.

[~Nins~]

<
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "Magda" > wrote in message
|| ...
|||
||| In your neck of woods, maybe.
|||
||
|| Everywhere.

Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the word
"marriage". Some people simply define it as a union between two people in
love and of mutual consent; however, that definition is vague and
secular-based and based on individual *preference*. On a secular level,
that's fine, but in a religious framework the definition is not quite so
vague and not so out of personal preference. This is one of those debates
that will just go on and on because there are so many elements and opinions
involved in it. You can choose to get caught in the whirlpool of it or not.
The whirlpool gets all muddy if the participants get zapped with zingers
between each other, when it gets to that point, best to pull yourself out of
it and leave it be.

I provided a link in another post in this thread, use references when trying
to argue your point, and that link has mention of some specific references.
Good luck, I've said my piece on it, although I had intended on not
returning to the NG quite so soon. Toodles....
Here's the link for quick reference for you....
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:otq%b.25231$AL.466780@attbi_s03...
>
> Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the word
> "marriage".
>


When individuals can define words to their liking language ceases to have
meaning.

[~Nins~]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" > wrote in message
|| news:otq%b.25231$AL.466780@attbi_s03...
|||
||| Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the
||| word "marriage".
|||
||
||
|| When individuals can define words to their liking language ceases to
|| have meaning.

True, sometimes, but that is the reality sometimes. You did read the rest
of my post, didn't you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:VMq%b.418336$na.808874@attbi_s04...
>
> You did read the rest of my post, didn't you?
>

Yup.

[[email protected]]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:jtq%b.25230$AL.466402@attbi_s03
> wrote:
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote in
>>> message
>>>
hlink.net.
...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in
message
>>>>
ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous
usage of the
>>>>> language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and
therefore
>>>>> may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable
within the
>>>>> many multitudes of social, political and religious
institutions of
>>>>> the world which are many more than most people fully
comprehend.
>>>>> Within that framework, marriage between two
individuals of the
>>>>> same sex is eminently a possibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with
something that is an
>>>>> absolute impossibility save that any behavior is
impossible among
>>>>> the many and diverse social-political-religious
institutions of
>>>>> the world or that any particular form of behavior by
homo sapiens
>>>>> sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one
may find in
>>>>> the world.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the
opposite sex.
>>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
>>> social-political-religious framework it will be whatever
any human
>>> social-political-religious group can come up with.
>
> Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to
the Old
> Testament (Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made
specific
> reference to the act of same gender sex and the union of
two, which
> would invalidate the same-sex marriage issue. Marriage is
a covenant
> involving God and two people (man-woman). The Church
recently
> addressed the issue with a 12-page document of
considerations which
> *cited various biblical references*. Below is the link to
this
> document which also mentions legislators when voting on
the issue.
> "When legislation in favour of the recognition of
homosexual unions
> is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly,
the
> Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his
opposition clearly
> and publicly and to vote against it." In some religious
frameworks
> (churches), the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an
> impossibility. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75
>
>
>>>
>>> You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly
illiterate.
>
> It is a union meant for two people of different gender.
> Homosexuality is not something I agree with and never will
agree with
> it. However, if that's what they have decided for
themselves and if
> it brings them happiness in some way, while I might voice
my
> opposition to their act, I would not be unkind to them for
continuing
> it. Just as I would not be unkind I would never
condone/accept a gay
> marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned religious
framework).
>
> Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant
for
> male-female, is naive then I guess that makes the inspired
word of
> God naive? It has nothing to do with naivety or
illiteracy, but more
> to do with values and beliefs built from a foundation that
has its
> roots in the Bible (the inspired word of God), at least in
the
> religious framework anyhow.
>
> This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not
now. I
> prefer to go with what's been in place for a couple
thousand years or
> more. ;) Does that make me one or both, naive or
illiterate?
>
> Back to my break. Toodles.

It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my own
religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as
being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and
religious laws. However, in the US my religion and yours
are not the only ones that are followed by the many and
diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it is
mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic
and civil institutions of marriage before the civil
authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed and
if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize that
such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties and
obligations as any other marriage under those civil
authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of the
New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of the
state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render
unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such a
use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he who
cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse (depending
upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act)
than a same sex marriage. :-)

Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I made/make
my living enforcing the will of one group of people over
another and sometimes see that my side is not always in the
absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in
such situations I try to allow for that which is different
from my own ways so long as it does not harm others.

Snark

[la n.]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "~Nins~" > wrote in message
> news:jtq%b.25230$AL.466402@attbi_s03
> > wrote:
> >>> "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote in
> >>> message
> >>>
> hlink.net.
> ..
> >>>>
> >>>> " > wrote in
> message
> >>>>
> ink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous
> usage of the
> >>>>> language.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and
> therefore
> >>>>> may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable
> within the
> >>>>> many multitudes of social, political and religious
> institutions of
> >>>>> the world which are many more than most people fully
> comprehend.
> >>>>> Within that framework, marriage between two
> individuals of the
> >>>>> same sex is eminently a possibility.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with
> something that is an
> >>>>> absolute impossibility save that any behavior is
> impossible among
> >>>>> the many and diverse social-political-religious
> institutions of
> >>>>> the world or that any particular form of behavior by
> homo sapiens
> >>>>> sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one
> may find in
> >>>>> the world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the
> opposite sex.
> >>>>
> >>> No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
> >>> social-political-religious framework it will be whatever
> any human
> >>> social-political-religious group can come up with.
> >
> > Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to
> the Old
> > Testament (Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made
> specific
> > reference to the act of same gender sex and the union of
> two, which
> > would invalidate the same-sex marriage issue. Marriage is
> a covenant
> > involving God and two people (man-woman). The Church
> recently
> > addressed the issue with a 12-page document of
> considerations which
> > *cited various biblical references*. Below is the link to
> this
> > document which also mentions legislators when voting on
> the issue.
> > "When legislation in favour of the recognition of
> homosexual unions
> > is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly,
> the
> > Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his
> opposition clearly
> > and publicly and to vote against it." In some religious
> frameworks
> > (churches), the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an
> > impossibility. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly
> illiterate.
> >
> > It is a union meant for two people of different gender.
> > Homosexuality is not something I agree with and never will
> agree with
> > it. However, if that's what they have decided for
> themselves and if
> > it brings them happiness in some way, while I might voice
> my
> > opposition to their act, I would not be unkind to them for
> continuing
> > it. Just as I would not be unkind I would never
> condone/accept a gay
> > marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned religious
> framework).
> >
> > Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant
> for
> > male-female, is naive then I guess that makes the inspired
> word of
> > God naive? It has nothing to do with naivety or
> illiteracy, but more
> > to do with values and beliefs built from a foundation that
> has its
> > roots in the Bible (the inspired word of God), at least in
> the
> > religious framework anyhow.
> >
> > This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not
> now. I
> > prefer to go with what's been in place for a couple
> thousand years or
> > more. ;) Does that make me one or both, naive or
> illiterate?
> >
> > Back to my break. Toodles.
>
> It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my own
> religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as
> being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and
> religious laws. However, in the US my religion and yours
> are not the only ones that are followed by the many and
> diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it is
> mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic
> and civil institutions of marriage before the civil
> authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed and
> if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize that
> such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties and
> obligations as any other marriage under those civil
> authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of the
> New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of the
> state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render
> unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such a
> use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he who
> cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse (depending
> upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act)
> than a same sex marriage. :-)
>
> Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I made/make
> my living enforcing the will of one group of people over
> another and sometimes see that my side is not always in the
> absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in
> such situations I try to allow for that which is different
> from my own ways so long as it does not harm others.
>

I agree with you, Snark, but that's easy .... coz I live in
Canada where same sex marriage is permitted ... :)

Furthermore, if one wanted to take the Bible literally
to the word, we would be mandated to call upon the
death of homosexuals:

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them.

Now, does the government really want to get involved
in *that* nasty business?

- nilita

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:21:33 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...

>> Since marriage does grant rights, it is unconstitutional to deny those
>> rights without due process of law (14th Amendment, Section 1) Here in
>> California, Article I, Section 31 of the State Constitution forbids
>> discrimination in public contracts, which includes marriage.
>
>Who is being denied marriage?

Same-sex couples.

>> Now, I'd like you to explain what has happened to your life now that
>> over 3,000 gay couples have been married in San Francisco.
>
>By "gay couples" I assume you mean same-sex couples. No same-sex couples
>have been married in San Francisco. Marriage requires persons of the
>opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex
>just as heterosexuals are. No rights are being denied to anyone.

Wrong. over 3,100 people have been married. Not one of thiose unions
has been successfully challenged. In four different hearings judges
have refused to stop the marriages from occuring.

>> I am, for almost 13 years now. My marriage is
>> still solid as a rock. What harm is being done? Explain it to me.
>
>Harm is not the issue.

Actually, it is.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[[email protected]]

"la n." > wrote in message

> " > wrote in
message
>
link.net..
..
<snip>
>> It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my
own
>> religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as
>> being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and
>> religious laws. However, in the US my religion and
yours
>> are not the only ones that are followed by the many and
>> diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it
is
>> mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic
>> and civil institutions of marriage before the civil
>> authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed
and
>> if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize
that
>> such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties
and
>> obligations as any other marriage under those civil
>> authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of
the
>> New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of
the
>> state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and
render
>> unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such
a
>> use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he
who
>> cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse
(depending
>> upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act)
>> than a same sex marriage. :-)
>>
>> Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I
made/make
>> my living enforcing the will of one group of people over
>> another and sometimes see that my side is not always in
the
>> absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in
>> such situations I try to allow for that which is
different
>> from my own ways so long as it does not harm others.
>>
>
> I agree with you, Snark, but that's easy .... coz I live
in
> Canada where same sex marriage is permitted ... :)
>
> Furthermore, if one wanted to take the Bible literally
> to the word, we would be mandated to call upon the
> death of homosexuals:
>
> Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he
> lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
> abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
> blood shall be upon them.
>
> Now, does the government really want to get involved
> in *that* nasty business?
>

All governments do get involved in *that* nasty business.
In fact one of the parts of my job is to commit murder and
assault upon people as my government may direct.
Governments decide which murders are characterized as
criminal and which are not. Ultimately, I believe I _will_
answer to god for my part in them and will stand before him
unbowed as those were and are my acts for which I am
responsible and felt were necessary at the time.

What god will determine thereafter is up to god.

Snark

[Jez]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
> Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:21:33 GMT, a stranger
> called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> came forth and told this tale in us.military.army
>
> >
> >"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Since marriage does grant rights, it is unconstitutional to deny those
> >> rights without due process of law (14th Amendment, Section 1) Here in
> >> California, Article I, Section 31 of the State Constitution forbids
> >> discrimination in public contracts, which includes marriage.
> >
> >Who is being denied marriage?
>
> Same-sex couples.

I suppose this has been answered earlier in the thread, but, if
you don't mind me asking, why would 'same-sex couples' want to get
married anyway ??

Pensions ? Keeping the house when a partner died...?? What ??
Is it a legal thing, or a religious thing ??

Just wondering.....

--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

[Joy]

"Jez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:21:33 GMT, a stranger
> > called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > came forth and told this tale in us.military.army
> >
> > >
> > >"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >> Since marriage does grant rights, it is unconstitutional to deny
those
> > >> rights without due process of law (14th Amendment, Section 1) Here
in
> > >> California, Article I, Section 31 of the State Constitution forbids
> > >> discrimination in public contracts, which includes marriage.
> > >
> > >Who is being denied marriage?
> >
> > Same-sex couples.
>
> I suppose this has been answered earlier in the thread, but, if
> you don't mind me asking, why would 'same-sex couples' want to get
> married anyway ??
>
> Pensions ? Keeping the house when a partner died...?? What ??
> Is it a legal thing, or a religious thing ??
>
> Just wondering.....

This is speculation on my part, since I'm heterosexual, but I think that
things like being able to cover each other on health insurance, social
security benefits, the ability to file income tax jointly, being able to sit
with each other in the intensive care unit, bereavement leave, FMLA rights
to care for a sick spouse or spouses children, ability to make medical
decisions for a sick spouse, immigration access for spouses, spousal
privilege in lawsuits, and so forth would matter just as much to gay couples
as straight couples.

[la n.]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "la n." > wrote in message
>
> > " > wrote in
> message
> >
> link.net..
> .
> <snip>
> >> It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my
> own
> >> religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as
> >> being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and
> >> religious laws. However, in the US my religion and
> yours
> >> are not the only ones that are followed by the many and
> >> diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it
> is
> >> mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic
> >> and civil institutions of marriage before the civil
> >> authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed
> and
> >> if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize
> that
> >> such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties
> and
> >> obligations as any other marriage under those civil
> >> authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of
> the
> >> New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of
> the
> >> state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and
> render
> >> unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such
> a
> >> use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he
> who
> >> cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse
> (depending
> >> upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act)
> >> than a same sex marriage. :-)
> >>
> >> Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I
> made/make
> >> my living enforcing the will of one group of people over
> >> another and sometimes see that my side is not always in
> the
> >> absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in
> >> such situations I try to allow for that which is
> different
> >> from my own ways so long as it does not harm others.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with you, Snark, but that's easy .... coz I live
> in
> > Canada where same sex marriage is permitted ... :)
> >
> > Furthermore, if one wanted to take the Bible literally
> > to the word, we would be mandated to call upon the
> > death of homosexuals:
> >
> > Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he
> > lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
> > abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
> > blood shall be upon them.
> >
> > Now, does the government really want to get involved
> > in *that* nasty business?
> >
>
> All governments do get involved in *that* nasty business.
> In fact one of the parts of my job is to commit murder and
> assault upon people as my government may direct.
> Governments decide which murders are characterized as
> criminal and which are not. Ultimately, I believe I _will_
> answer to god for my part in them and will stand before him
> unbowed as those were and are my acts for which I am
> responsible and felt were necessary at the time.
>
> What god will determine thereafter is up to god.
>

Well, the "nasty business" I'm talking about is the
Scriptural mandate of killing homosexuals. If your
government mandated you to do that, you would
follow orders???!!!!! Would your conscience
allow that????

Speaking of your government, here's a little
something that came in the mail to me:

In Defense of Biblical Marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray
for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify
the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical
principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of
marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored
by our government." This is true.

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced
by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals,
is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely
on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines,
in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II
Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed
to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise
punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town,
it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him
(even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young
and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule
applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

-- nilita

[Ajax Telamon]

"Joy" > wrote in message
...
> > Just wondering.....
>
> This is speculation on my part, since I'm heterosexual, but I think that
> things like being able to cover each other on health insurance, social
> security benefits, the ability to file income tax jointly, being able to
sit
> with each other in the intensive care unit, bereavement leave, FMLA rights
> to care for a sick spouse or spouses children, ability to make medical
> decisions for a sick spouse, immigration access for spouses, spousal
> privilege in lawsuits, and so forth would matter just as much to gay
couples
> as straight couples.

Don't forget that all important inheritance tax (AKA death tax). A person
can leave unlimited assets to their spouse and no taxes would be owing. But
if you are not married, the tax kicks in on estates just over $1 million
which when you think about it is not all that large an amount. Almost anyone
who starts out saving at a young age, saves modestly and invests in common
stocks can accumulate that much in a few decades. The tax rates can go as
high as 55%. Many gay people has substantial assets and marriage would
protect them from the tax man. The inheritance tax is supposedly semi
repealed but for now it is in force.
--
Ajax Telamon
"No profession or occupation is more
pleasing than the military; a profession
or exercise both noble in execution
and noble in its cause. No utility either
more just or universal than the
protection of the repose or defence
of the greatness of one's country.
The company and daily conversation
of so many noble, young and active
men cannot but be well-pleasing to you."

Michel de Montaigne (1588)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Same-sex couples.
>

You can't be denied something that does not exist.

>
> Wrong. over 3,100 people have been married.
>

No, they just think they've been married.


>
> Not one of thiose unions
> has been successfully challenged. In four different hearings judges
> have refused to stop the marriages from occuring.
>

Marriages cannot occur between persons of the same sex regardless what
judges do or say.

[Jez]

"Joy" > wrote in message
...

> >
> > I suppose this has been answered earlier in the thread, but, if
> > you don't mind me asking, why would 'same-sex couples' want to get
> > married anyway ??
> >
> > Pensions ? Keeping the house when a partner died...?? What ??
> > Is it a legal thing, or a religious thing ??
> >
> > Just wondering.....
>
> This is speculation on my part, since I'm heterosexual, but I think that
> things like being able to cover each other on health insurance, social
> security benefits, the ability to file income tax jointly, being able to
sit
> with each other in the intensive care unit, bereavement leave, FMLA rights
> to care for a sick spouse or spouses children, ability to make medical
> decisions for a sick spouse, immigration access for spouses, spousal
> privilege in lawsuits, and so forth would matter just as much to gay
couples
> as straight couples.

Those seem to me like perfectly valid reasons.

Thanks.

--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

[Jez]

"Ajax Telamon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Just wondering.....
> >
> > This is speculation on my part, since I'm heterosexual, but I think that
> > things like being able to cover each other on health insurance, social
> > security benefits, the ability to file income tax jointly, being able to
> sit
> > with each other in the intensive care unit, bereavement leave, FMLA
rights
> > to care for a sick spouse or spouses children, ability to make medical
> > decisions for a sick spouse, immigration access for spouses, spousal
> > privilege in lawsuits, and so forth would matter just as much to gay
> couples
> > as straight couples.
>
> Don't forget that all important inheritance tax (AKA death tax). A person
> can leave unlimited assets to their spouse and no taxes would be owing.
But
> if you are not married, the tax kicks in on estates just over $1 million
> which when you think about it is not all that large an amount. Almost
anyone
> who starts out saving at a young age, saves modestly and invests in common
> stocks can accumulate that much in a few decades. The tax rates can go as
> high as 55%. Many gay people has substantial assets and marriage would
> protect them from the tax man. The inheritance tax is supposedly semi
> repealed but for now it is in force.

Mmm Good point.
I can see why many (In Government)
would oppose them marrying for those reasons....


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:52:52 -0000, a stranger
called by some "Jez" > came forth
and told this tale in us.military.army

>I suppose this has been answered earlier in the thread, but, if
>you don't mind me asking, why would 'same-sex couples' want to get
>married anyway ??
>
>Pensions ? Keeping the house when a partner died...?? What ??
>Is it a legal thing, or a religious thing ??
>
>Just wondering.....

There are over a thousand legal benefits granted to married couples in
the United States. You've mentioned a couple.

Add in things like the ability to file joint tax returns, automatic
assumption of next-of-kin status, the fact that married couples cannot
be compelled to testify against one another, inheritance, insurance
benefits, etc.. it is a desirable state.

A group in San Francisco did a study a few years back, and figured out
it would take close to $30,000 and dozens of court visits to get even
close to what an $81 marriage license grants. And even then, you
don't get all the benefits.

But all that is secondary. Same-sex couples get married for the same
reason opposite sex couples get married: They are in love, and want
to join their lives. When I proposed to my wife, I didn't phrase it
as a business arrangement, I told her I loved her, and wanted to marry
her.

I wish you all could have seen SF City Hall during the first week of
gay marriages. The place was filled with joy. Couples who had been
together for decades were finally hearing words that had been denied
them. You couldn't find a bouquet in a five mile radius - they had
all been donated to the couples standing in line. A bridal shop took
all their old dresses, and gave them to people waiting in line,
walking down the line shouting "who needs a size 14? size 8? Remember
to pass it along!"

What does marriage mean to gays and lesbians? Thousands of people
slept on the sidewalk during a Pacific storm (heavy rains, high winds,
temps in the low 40s) for the chance to get married. People drove
from Kansas, Texas, even from Georgia because they couldn't get a seat
on a plane. People brought their parents, their kids, their friends.
I saw a SFPD officer and her partner married by the SFPD's chaplain,
with a full honor guard of officers. As each couple existed City
Hall, they held they marriage certificates up like a trophy, and get
cheers from the hundreds lined up along the sidewalks.

It's about love. As is all marriage.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:24:59 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Same-sex couples.
>
>You can't be denied something that does not exist.

Marriage exists in the United States. Competant adults who happen to
be gay are denied this civil right.


>> Wrong. over 3,100 people have been married.
>
>No, they just think they've been married.

No, they ceremonies have been performed, and the certificates, same as
the one my wife and I have, have been issued.

>> Not one of those unions
>> has been successfully challenged. In four different hearings judges
>> have refused to stop the marriages from occuring.
>
>Marriages cannot occur between persons of the same sex regardless what
>judges do or say.

Funny, but in this universe judges do have a say on marriage.. or do
you think that it was right for southern states to ban interracial
marriages?

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Marriage exists in the United States. Competant adults who happen to
> be gay are denied this civil right.
>

Not true. Competent adults who happen to be gay have exactly the same right
to marry a person of the opposite sex that competent adults that are not gay
have.


>
> No, they ceremonies have been performed, and the certificates, same as
> the one my wife and I have, have been issued.
>

Those certificates are not valid.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> The question is : does Steve *think* at all ?
>

Steve thinks constantly.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Magda" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The question is : does Steve *think* at all ?
> >
>
> Steve thinks constantly.
>
>

Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
declarations? While I don't consider Biblical quotes authoritative, the
religious conservatives that cite them at least demonstrate some
research and logic.

[Jarg]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
>
.. One term, and he's out.
>

Don't bet your life on it.

Jarg

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
> declarations?
>

Yes, review the thread.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> But with the small head *only*.
>

Your position is illogical.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
> > declarations?
> >
>
> Yes, review the thread.
>
>

I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
statements with no references.

[Eugene Griessel]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article .net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
> > > declarations?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, review the thread.
> >
> >
>
> I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
> statements with no references.

It has been rather a pythonesque performance, hasn't it? To
paraphrase:

"An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected
series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is
an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."

"No it isn't".

We still await Mr McNicoll's reasoning beyond his flat statement that
marriage is only possible within the rather narrow definition in which
he holds it.
Marriage is a human construct, no other primate other than Homo
sapiens indulges in it. And it is a rather modern human construct.
Furthermore that which passes for "marriage" in the USA is a very new
construct subscribed to by perhaps 20% of the world's peoples. To
assert that term "marriage" is immutable and that the English language
is rigid in its definition is hardly supported by events. In 1950 any
male would have proudly proclaimed himself to be "gay" as in "I'm a
gay bachelor". A few years later this was no longer the case. Words
are not sacrosanct, their meanings do change - in fact because
language is dynamic they change almost contantly, albeit slowly,
usually. Anyone with a weakness for Shakespeare and Chaucer will
attest to that!

Returning to the subject of marriage, for a long period in human
history this had reference to the "joining" of property and power
rather than what we consider today - love etc. Admittedly the joining
did mostly involve two persons of the opposite sex. Especially as one
of the avowed purposes was procreation and the creation of heirs. But
as marriage largely also involves the legal union of two properties
there is no reason whatsoever why its definition should be confined to
persons of the opposite sex.

Humans invented it, humans can change it. We have no carved tablets
of stone defining marriage ultimately.

Marriage is defined legally (even in religious systems), and the
ramifications are both extensive, complicated and vary from legal
system to legal system. And are subject to continuous change. It is
possible (though highly unlikely, of course) for a government to
forbid marriage between members of the opposite sex and only condone
it between members of the same sex. Strange things have happened in
law!

However Mr McNicolls' avid and vehement assertion to the effect that
"it is not possible" is clearly without universal status. It may be
true in a certain place, at a given time and within a known legal
system, but is not a universal truth.

On a personal note, and for reasons I will not go into here, I do find
same sex marriages a little self-defeating. But as has been pointed
out, there are legal benefits to be gained under many legal systems -
and while these are being extended to male-female unions it is
discriminatory to withhold them from equally valid same sex unions.

Marriage is after all just a contract between two parties.

Eugene Griessel

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article .net>,
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
> > > > declarations?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, review the thread.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
> > statements with no references.
>
> It has been rather a pythonesque performance, hasn't it? To
> paraphrase:
>
> "An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected
> series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is
> an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
> gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."
>
> "No it isn't".
>
> We still await Mr McNicoll's reasoning beyond his flat statement that
> marriage is only possible within the rather narrow definition in which
> he holds it.

"'es not dead. 'es simply resting."

Perhaps the stress of pining for the fjords interferes with his argument?

> Marriage is a human construct, no other primate other than Homo
> sapiens indulges in it. And it is a rather modern human construct.
> Furthermore that which passes for "marriage" in the USA is a very new
> construct subscribed to by perhaps 20% of the world's peoples. To
> assert that term "marriage" is immutable and that the English language
> is rigid in its definition is hardly supported by events. In 1950 any
> male would have proudly proclaimed himself to be "gay" as in "I'm a
> gay bachelor". A few years later this was no longer the case. Words
> are not sacrosanct, their meanings do change - in fact because
> language is dynamic they change almost contantly, albeit slowly,
> usually. Anyone with a weakness for Shakespeare and Chaucer will
> attest to that!

I must share an experience from those times. My house was built just
after WWII, and the first occupants built, very badly, an extension not
long after.

When we were tearing down the extension to put in a larger, better built
one, we discovered that the prior builders had stuffed newspapers into
the framing, presumably as insulation. Some of the newspapers reported
MacArthur's firing from the Korean command. One headline was especially
memorable (might have been the New York Post):
"MAC RETURNS
New York Gives Gay Welcome"
>
> Returning to the subject of marriage, for a long period in human
> history this had reference to the "joining" of property and power
> rather than what we consider today - love etc. Admittedly the joining
> did mostly involve two persons of the opposite sex. Especially as one
> of the avowed purposes was procreation and the creation of heirs. But
> as marriage largely also involves the legal union of two properties
> there is no reason whatsoever why its definition should be confined to
> persons of the opposite sex.
>
> Humans invented it, humans can change it. We have no carved tablets
> of stone defining marriage ultimately.
>
> Marriage is defined legally (even in religious systems), and the
> ramifications are both extensive, complicated and vary from legal
> system to legal system. And are subject to continuous change. It is
> possible (though highly unlikely, of course) for a government to
> forbid marriage between members of the opposite sex and only condone
> it between members of the same sex. Strange things have happened in
> law!

For me, a simplification is to declare marriage a religious rite that
has civil contractual implications that can be recorded by a government
agency. The core contractual obligations can also be performed by an
approved civil official, and recorded in the same way.

It is possible, although potentially unwise, that additional conditions
defined by the religious body performing a marriage could be recorded.
Of course, these can range from polygamy to marriage-for-life to
same-sex marriage (the last performed as a religious ceremony)
>
> However Mr McNicolls' avid and vehement assertion to the effect that
> "it is not possible" is clearly without universal status. It may be
> true in a certain place, at a given time and within a known legal
> system, but is not a universal truth.
>
> On a personal note, and for reasons I will not go into here, I do find
> same sex marriages a little self-defeating. But as has been pointed
> out, there are legal benefits to be gained under many legal systems -
> and while these are being extended to male-female unions it is
> discriminatory to withhold them from equally valid same sex unions.
>
> Marriage is after all just a contract between two parties.
>
> Eugene Griessel

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:45:19 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Marriage exists in the United States. Competant adults who happen to
>> be gay are denied this civil right.
>
>Not true. Competent adults who happen to be gay have exactly the same right
>to marry a person of the opposite sex that competent adults that are not gay
>have.

Which is an unacceptable violation of the California Constitution,
Article 1, Section 31, because it discriminates on the basis of sex.

>> No, they ceremonies have been performed, and the certificates, same as
>> the one my wife and I have, have been issued.
>
>Those certificates are not valid.

So far, not a single court has agreed with you.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
> statements with no references.
>

Then you haven't reviewed all of it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which is an unacceptable violation of the California Constitution,
> Article 1, Section 31, because it discriminates on the basis of sex.
>

How is there discrimination if everyone is treated the same?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who is "everyone" ??
>

All consenting adults.


>
> Those who can marry who they want, or those who can't ?
>

What consenting adults are not permitted to marry?

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Douglas Berry > wrote:

> ...
> I wish you all could have seen SF City Hall during the first week of
> gay marriages. The place was filled with joy.

Hmmm, well I wasn't in the building (were you?), but I attended my son's
SF Unified School District's field trip to the SF Symphony (a block
away), and what I saw was a long line in front of city hall...some
making out in front of SFUSD first and second graders near them.



> What does marriage mean to gays and lesbians? Thousands of people
> slept on the sidewalk during a Pacific storm (heavy rains, high winds,
> temps in the low 40s) for the chance to get married.


Yeah right. Did you see them "sleeping" there? I was downtown early
morning (7am) during that storm (which started at about 2am SF time) and
there were NO people in front of city hall. Are you just making this
stuff up?



--Mike

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you really that thick or are you just pretending to be
> incommensurably stupid ?
>

I am neither. If you believe there are any consenting adults in the US that
are not permitted to marry by any action of any government body you simply
do not understand what marriage is. In short, I am not the one that is
thick or immeasurably stupid.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:10:41 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>> Those who can marry who they want, or those who can't ?
>
>What consenting adults are not permitted to marry?

My friends Sylvan and Fred. They want to marry each other. They are
consenting adults. They are being discriminated against because of
the gender involved.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> My friends Sylvan and Fred. They want to marry each other. They are
> consenting adults. They are being discriminated against because of
> the gender involved.
>

Your friends are not being discriminated against. They cannot marry anyone
of their gender because marriage requires persons of different gender.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll repeat myself (and others) : luckily for humanity, US is NOT the
> only country on Earth, and in THREE OTHER COUNTRIES gays
> are already allowed to marry, and it's just the beginning.
>

Gays are allowed to marry in the US.


>
> Got it now, Mr Irremediably-Incommensurably Stupid ?
>

I've always had it. I've been trying to help you understand it. But it
appears that's simply beyond your ability.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:10:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> My friends Sylvan and Fred. They want to marry each other. They are
>> consenting adults. They are being discriminated against because of
>> the gender involved.

>Your friends are not being discriminated against. They cannot marry anyone
>of their gender because marriage requires persons of different gender.

Which discriminates on the basis of gender.

Or, to put it another way.. several years back, a young woman sued her
high school because she was not allowed to try out for the football
team as a place kicker. The rules for the league described football
as a boys sport, but the court ruled that the rules unfairly
discriminated.

So, moron, you can challenege things, and just because it's always
been done one way doesn't mean it's not discrimitory.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which discriminates on the basis of gender.
>

Nonsense. The state has no control over gender.


>
> So, moron, you can challenege things, and just because it's always
> been done one way doesn't mean it's not discrimitory.
>

Ah, the inevitable name-calling in lieu of a cogent argument.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> You'll have to wait, then - or else get married to your boyfriend
> in Europe.
>

You're not even trying to understand this.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, you mean that you are ??
>

I already understand it. I've been trying to help you understand. A little
effort on your part would help.

[Merlin Dorfman]

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

: "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > Which is an unacceptable violation of the California Constitution,
: > Article 1, Section 31, because it discriminates on the basis of sex.
: >

: How is there discrimination if everyone is treated the same?

"Anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no
discrimination."
This is like saying that requiring blacks to attend one school
system and whites another is not discrimination because the same
restrictions apply to both--whites can't go to the black schools any
more than blacks can go to the white schools.
And, believe me, this argument was made...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no
> discrimination."
> This is like saying that requiring blacks to attend one school
> system and whites another is not discrimination because the same
> restrictions apply to both--whites can't go to the black schools any
> more than blacks can go to the white schools.
>

Actually, it's not like that at all. I have tried to help you understand
this issue, but you're clearly determined to remain ignorant. So be it.
I've done all I can do.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Actually, it's not like that at all. I have tried to help you understand
> this issue, but you're clearly determined to remain ignorant. So be it.
> I've done all I can do.
>

Sorry, I thought it was Magda responding again.

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Magda" > wrote:
>>
>> I'll repeat myself (and others) : luckily for humanity, US is NOT the
>> only country on Earth, and in THREE OTHER COUNTRIES gays
>> are already allowed to marry, and it's just the beginning.
>
>Gays are allowed to marry in the US.

Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.

--
Delete the numerals from my email address to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
> their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.
>

Gays are allowed to marry any consenting, non-related adult of the opposite
sex in the US, just as heterosexuals are. They are treated exactly the
same.

[George Z. Bush]

Larry Kessler wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Magda" > wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll repeat myself (and others) : luckily for humanity, US is NOT the
>>> only country on Earth, and in THREE OTHER COUNTRIES gays
>>> are already allowed to marry, and it's just the beginning.
>>
>> Gays are allowed to marry in the US.
>
> Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
> their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.

And what was that that was going on in San Francisco's City Hall all of last
week? Or did somebody cut off SF and float it out to sea and it's no longer
part of the US?

George Z.

[Ajax Telamon]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, they ceremonies have been performed, and the certificates, same as
> > the one my wife and I have, have been issued.
> >
>
> Those certificates are not valid.

I am not so sure about that. True, IMHO they should not have been issued but
since they WERE issued by competent authority they are as valid an any other
license issued by the government. Marriage is controlled by the government
power to issue licenses. I say good luck to all who embark on the great
adventure of marriage. Take care,
--
Ajax Telamon
"No profession or occupation is more
pleasing than the military; a profession
or exercise both noble in execution
and noble in its cause. No utility either
more just or universal than the
protection of the repose or defence
of the greatness of one's country.
The company and daily conversation
of so many noble, young and active
men cannot but be well-pleasing to you."

Michel de Montaigne (1588)

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"Ajax Telamon" > wrote:

> > > No, they ceremonies have been performed, and the certificates, same as
> > > the one my wife and I have, have been issued.
> > >
> >
> > Those certificates are not valid.
>
> I am not so sure about that. True, IMHO they should not have been issued but
> since they WERE issued by competent authority they are as valid an any other
> license issued by the government.


But competent authorities, not something SF is known for in its city
government, do not have the power to alter state govermental forms (as
SF did). That alone, should make all those licenses invalid.



--Mike

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ajax Telamon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am not so sure about that.
>

I am.

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Larry Kessler" > wrote:
>>
>> Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
>> their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.
>
>Gays are allowed to marry any consenting, non-related adult of the opposite
>sex in the US, just as heterosexuals are. They are treated exactly the
>same.

Including the phrase "of the opposite sex" makes their treatment very
UNequal. Not to reopen the old
gay-marriage-vis-a-vis-black-equal-rights debate again, it's more like
the issue of permitting people of different races to marry, which was
illegal in many states until 1967.

You could have said that black people are just as free to marry within
their race as white people are, so there's no unfair treatment; but
that disingenuously ignores the plight of couples who fall in love but
are of different races.

The right to marry someone of the opposite sex is as worthless to a
gay person as the "right" to beg for food and sleep under bridges
would be to a wealthy person. The law forbids both rich and poor to
do so, but only affects the poor.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court confirmed that marriage is a
right, and I predict that when this issue reaches the USSC (as it
eventually must) they will make a similar ruling on this issue, using
LvV as precedent.

--
Delete the numerals from my email address to reply.

[Larry Kessler]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>Larry Kessler wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Magda" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'll repeat myself (and others) : luckily for humanity, US is NOT the
>>>> only country on Earth, and in THREE OTHER COUNTRIES gays
>>>> are already allowed to marry, and it's just the beginning.
>>>
>>> Gays are allowed to marry in the US.
>>
>> Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
>> their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.
>
>And what was that that was going on in San Francisco's City Hall all of last
>week? Or did somebody cut off SF and float it out to sea and it's no longer
>part of the US?

That was the beginning of the end of the prohibition on same-sex
marriages. In most of the USA, my statement still holds true.

--
Delete the numerals from my email address to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> Including the phrase "of the opposite sex" makes their treatment very
> UNequal.
>

The phrase "of the opposite sex" is superfluous as marriage requires persons
of the opposite sex anyway. Homosexuals are treated no differently than
heterosexuals with regard to marriage.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was the beginning of the end of the prohibition on same-sex
> marriages. In most of the USA, my statement still holds true.
>

Same-sex marriage is not prohibited, it's simply impossible.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:23:32 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That was the beginning of the end of the prohibition on same-sex
>> marriages. In most of the USA, my statement still holds true.
>>
>
>Same-sex marriage is not prohibited, it's simply impossible.

No, it isn't. It's happening across the US now.
>

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's happening across the US now.
>

No it isn't. Many ignorant people only think it is.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:00:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It's happening across the US now.
>
>No it isn't. Many ignorant people only think it is.

OK, you've reached delusional status now.

3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
Oregon started issuing them today.

They will soon be coming to MA.

You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
marriages are a reality. Deal with it.

I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
"because I said so."
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Larry Kessler" > wrote:
>
>> Including the phrase "of the opposite sex" makes their treatment very
>> UNequal.
>
>The phrase "of the opposite sex" is superfluous as marriage requires persons
>of the opposite sex anyway.

*AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does. At one time, marriage was defined as
the union of one man and one woman both of the same race, since
interracial marriages were as illegal as gay marriages are now in most
places. Long ago, and even today in some places, marriage was/is
defined as the union of one man and as many women as he can support.

The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
subject to redefinition from time to time.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

[Jarg]

"Douglas Berry" > OK, you've reached delusional status now.
>
> 3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
> Oregon started issuing them today.
>
> They will soon be coming to MA.
>
> You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
> marriages are a reality. Deal with it.
>
> I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
> "because I said so."
> --
>
> Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail


Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.

As to Steve's statements about gay marriage not being possible, I think he
has overstated his doctrinal beliefs. I am guessing that he means Christian
gay marriages are not possible. I would be curious to know if he thinks
Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, etc. marriages are possible, or if marriage is
possible between all men an all women regardless of faith since the
Christian Bible defines marriage in Christian terms only as far as I know.
In other words, how do you mesh the religious and secular ideas of marriage?

Jarg

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:16 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

>Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
>he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
>courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
>happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
>birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
>fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.

In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.


--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Jarg]

"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
Not the states,
> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
> singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"[I]ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Jarg

[Doug Anderson]

"Jarg" > writes:

> "Douglas Berry" > OK, you've reached delusional status now.
> >
> > 3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
> > Oregon started issuing them today.
> >
> > They will soon be coming to MA.
> >
> > You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
> > marriages are a reality. Deal with it.
> >
> > I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
> > "because I said so."
> > --
> >
> > Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
>
>
> Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
> he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
> courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
> happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
> birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
> fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.

Actually this isn't at all clear. The legal definition of marriage in
most places _is_ about this little piece of paper. Now in CA there is
clearly a problem, but in Oregon (which does _not_ define marriage as
specifically between a man and a woman) it isn't clear that this piece
of paper is bogus.

I don't know about other states.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

>"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
>Not the states,[i]
>> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
>> singal county now, they are marriages.
>
>I'm afraid that simply isn't true:
>
>California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
>man and a woman are valid in California.
>
>State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
>Campaign for California Families.
> "ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
>weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
>group said.

Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

But the state only records the certificates, it does not issue them.
Big difference.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Douglas Berry > wrote:

> Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:16 GMT, a stranger
> called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
> told this tale in us.military.army
>
> >Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
> >he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
> >courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
> >happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
> >birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
> >fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.
>
> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
> singal county now, they are marriages.


Not if they were done using unauthorized altered state forms...which is
the case in SF.


--Mike

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Douglas Berry > wrote:

> Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
> called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
> told this tale in us.military.army
>
> >"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
> >Not the states,[i]
> >> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
> >> singal county now, they are marriages.
> >
> >I'm afraid that simply isn't true:
> >
> >California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
> >man and a woman are valid in California.
> >
> >State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
> >Campaign for California Families.
> > "ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
> >weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
> >group said.
>
> Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
> SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
> preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
> race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
> public employment, public education, or public contracting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
"sex"...and not sexual preference.

>
> But the state only records the certificates, it does not issue them.
> Big difference.


And it is recording altered cerificates it does not have authorization
to alter.


--Mike

[Replacement_Tommel]

In article >, Michael Wise says...
>
>In article >,
> Douglas Berry > wrote:
>
>> Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
>> called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
>> told this tale in us.military.army
>>
>> >"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
>> >Not the states,
>> >> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
>> >> singal county now, they are marriages.
>> >
>> >I'm afraid that simply isn't true:
>> >
>> >California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
>> >man and a woman are valid in California.
>> >
>> >State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
>> >Campaign for California Families.
>> > "[I]ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
>> >weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
>> >group said.
>>
>> Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
>> preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
>> race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
>> public employment, public education, or public contracting.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
>"sex"...and not sexual preference.
>

Look up the full faith and credit clause in Art IV, Sec. 1 - all states must
recognize the legislative acts, public records (-i.e. Marriages legally
performed in that state), and judicial decisons in that state.

Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641 extrapolates on this.

In short, if a state allows gays to marry, ALL other sates must recognize it.

Go ahead, look it up.

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:16 GMT, "Jarg" > wrote:

>"Douglas Berry" > OK, you've reached delusional status now.
>>
>> 3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
>> Oregon started issuing them today.
>>
>> They will soon be coming to MA.
>>
>> You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
>> marriages are a reality. Deal with it.
>>
>> I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
>> "because I said so."
>> --
>>
>> Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
>
>
>Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
>he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
>courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
>happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
>birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
>fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.
>
>As to Steve's statements about gay marriage not being possible, I think he
>has overstated his doctrinal beliefs. I am guessing that he means Christian
>gay marriages are not possible. I would be curious to know if he thinks
>Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, etc. marriages are possible, or if marriage is
>possible between all men an all women regardless of faith since the
>Christian Bible defines marriage in Christian terms only as far as I know.
>In other words, how do you mesh the religious and secular ideas of marriage?
>
>Jarg
>
Why use the term "gay" when talking about homosexuals? They are not "gay",
they are lesbians and homosexuals.

Marriage is not appropriate for homosexuals.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:07:05 GMT, Douglas Berry > wrote:

>Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:16 GMT, a stranger
>called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
>told this tale in us.military.army
>
>>Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
>>he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
>>courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
>>happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
>>birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
>>fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.
>
>In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
>not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
>singal county now, they are marriages.

They are not marriages, they are abominations.

Al MInyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 03:45:44 GMT, Douglas Berry > wrote:

>Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
>called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
>told this tale in us.military.army
>
>>"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
>>Not the states,[i]
>>> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
>>> singal county now, they are marriages.
>>
>>I'm afraid that simply isn't true:
>>
>>California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
>>man and a woman are valid in California.
>>
>>State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
>>Campaign for California Families.
>> "ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
>>weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
>>group said.
>
>Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.
>
>But the state only records the certificates, it does not issue them.
>Big difference.

No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
and no "same sex" "marriages exit.

Al Minyard

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Replacement_Tommel > wrote:


>> >"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county
registars.
> >> >Not the states,
> >> >> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
> >> >> singal county now, they are marriages.
> >> >
> >> >I'm afraid that simply isn't true:
> >> >
> >> >California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
> >> >man and a woman are valid in California.
> >> >
> >> >State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
> >> >Campaign for California Families.
> >> > "[I]ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
> >> >weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
> >> >group said.
> >>
> >> Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
> >> preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
> >> race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
> >> public employment, public education, or public contracting.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
> >"sex"...and not sexual preference.
> >
>
> Look up the full faith and credit clause in Art IV, Sec. 1 - all states must
> recognize the legislative acts, public records (-i.e. Marriages legally
> performed in that state), and judicial decisons in that state.

>
> Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641 extrapolates on this.
>
> In short, if a state allows gays to marry, ALL other sates must recognize it.
>
> Go ahead, look it up.



First of all, that has nothing to do with Mr. Berry's claim and my
response to it concerning Article 1, Section 31 of the California State
Consititution.

Go ahead, look it up.


Secondly, since it is currently not legal in the state of California,
your entire point is moot. Please feel free to go ahead and look that up
as well. ; )

--Mike

[Ajax Telamon]

"Replacement_Tommel" > wrote in
message ...
> In article >, Michael Wise
says...
> >
> >In article >,
> > Douglas Berry > wrote:
> >
> >> Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
> >> called by some "Jarg" > came forth and
> >> told this tale in us.military.army
> >>
> >> >"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county
registars.
> >> >Not the states,
> >> >> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in
a
> >> >> singal county now, they are marriages.
> >> >
> >> >I'm afraid that simply isn't true:
> >> >
> >> >California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages
between a
> >> >man and a woman are valid in California.
> >> >
> >> >State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
> >> >Campaign for California Families.
> >> > "[I]ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at
unlawful
> >> >weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time,"
the
> >> >group said.
> >>
> >> Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
> >> preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
> >> race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
> >> public employment, public education, or public contracting.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
> >"sex"...and not sexual preference.
> >
>
> Look up the full faith and credit clause in Art IV, Sec. 1 - all states
must
> recognize the legislative acts, public records (-i.e. Marriages legally
> performed in that state), and judicial decisons in that state.
>
> Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641 extrapolates on this.
>
> In short, if a state allows gays to marry, ALL other sates must recognize
it.
>
> Go ahead, look it up.
>
> -Tom

Didn't Clinton's masterpiece enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act do an
end run around the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to
forestall just this eventuality? I wonder if the DOMA has been tested in
court?
Take care,
--
Ajax Telamon
"The belief in the possibility
of a short decisive war appears
to be one of the most ancient
and dangerous of human illusions."
- Robert Lynd

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:


> >
> Why use the term "gay" when talking about homosexuals? They are not
> "gay",
> they are lesbians and homosexuals.
>
> Marriage is not appropriate for homosexuals.
>

As long as you are wordsmithing, then I take it you approve of lesbian
marriage?

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:


>
> No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
> and no "same sex" "marriages exit.
>

With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.

[Douglas Berry]

In article >, Michael Wise
says...

>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
>> preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
>> race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
>> public employment, public education, or public contracting.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states

Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
we're both men.

I am being discriminated against because of my sex.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Douglas Berry > wrote:

> In article >, Michael Wise
> says...
>
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
> >> preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
> >> race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
> >> public employment, public education, or public contracting.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
>
> Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
> we're both men.
>
> I am being discriminated against because of my sex.


As a male, you are free to marry a female...so you are not being being
discrimnated by gender/sex. Now if you decide you want to marry another
male and are denied....it is based on your sexual preference.

--Mike

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
> we're both men.
>
> I am being discriminated against because of my sex.
>

No you're not.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

>In article >,
wrote:
>
>
>>
>> No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
>> and no "same sex" "marriages exit.
>>
>
>With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
>Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
>since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
>heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.

My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.

Al Minyard

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
> >> and no "same sex" "marriages exit.
> >>
> >
> >With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
> >Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
> >since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
> >heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.
>
> My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.
>
> Al Minyard

Nice change of subject. It doesn't recognize sexuality of any type. By
your logic, there's no recognition of heterosexual marriage -- or any
other type of marriage.

Following your interesting logic, there's no recognition of
Klinefelter's syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency with failure of
Mullerian development, prostatic cancer, ectopic pregnancy,
heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, hyperemesis
gravidarum, gamete in-vitro transfer, the missionary position or any
other position, masturbation, androgens, mineralocorticoids, estrogens,
progestins, etc. All of these, I take it, are prohibited.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, you've reached delusional status now.
>

How so?


>
> 3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
> Oregon started issuing them today.
>

3,500 invalid marriage licenses.


>
> You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
> marriages are a reality. Deal with it.
>

I have no reason to pout or whine about it, the fact remains that marriage
requires persons of the opposite so same-sex marriage is impossible. Deal
with that.


>
> I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
> "because I said so."
>

You're finished with me? What did you think you were doing with me? I have
presented a cogent argument, you just do not understand the issue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> *AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does.
>

Now you're catching on!


>
> The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
> subject to redefinition from time to time.
>

Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
includes unions of humans and animals.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
> singal county now, they are marriages.
>

They aren't. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article et>, Steven P.
>>McNicoll says...
>
>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
>> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
>> singal county now, they are marriages.
>>
>
>They aren't. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.
>
>

The definition of marriage has changed before and will probably change once
again. Do you think the laws that forbade miscegenation were okay?

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
> includes unions of humans and animals.


You've gotta be from Oklahoma.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Replacement_Tommel]

In article >, Michael Wise says...
>
>In article >,
> Replacement_Tommel > wrote:
>
>
>>> >"Douglas Berry" <> In the US, marriages are handled by county
>registars.
>> >> >Not the states,
>> >> >> not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
>> >> >> singal county now, they are marriages.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm afraid that simply isn't true:
>> >> >
>>>> >California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
>> >> >man and a woman are valid in California.
>> >> >
>> >> >State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
>> >> >Campaign for California Families.
>> >> > "[I]ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
>> >> >weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
>> >> >group said.
>> >>
>> >> Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
>> >> preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
>> >> race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
>> >> public employment, public education, or public contracting.
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
>> >"sex"...and not sexual preference.
>> >
>>
>> Look up the full faith and credit clause in Art IV, Sec. 1 - all states must
>> recognize the legislative acts, public records (-i.e. Marriages legally
>> performed in that state), and judicial decisons in that state.
>
>>
>> Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641 extrapolates on this.
>>
>> In short, if a state allows gays to marry, ALL other sates must recognize it.
>>
>> Go ahead, look it up.
>
>
>
>First of all, that has nothing to do with Mr. Berry's claim and my
>response to it concerning Article 1, Section 31 of the California State
>Consititution.
>
>Go ahead, look it up.
>
>
>Secondly, since it is currently not legal in the state of California,
>your entire point is moot. Please feel free to go ahead and look that up
>as well. ; )
>

A California case that you should look up:

Perez v. Sharpe, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)

"Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by
the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition
of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means."

The issues raised in that case are not that disimmillar.

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:26:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
>> subject to redefinition from time to time.
>>
>
>Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
>includes unions of humans and animals.

ONIONS, is it? Now you've gone too far. Oh. Wait.

nevermind....

[Grantland]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> *AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does.
>>
>
>Now you're catching on!
>
>
>>
>> The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
>> subject to redefinition from time to time.
>>
>
>Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
>includes unions of humans and animals.
>
What about negroes? I say, did you hear that fracas at the H Genome
project couple months ago? Where they wanted to reclassify chimps as
"human" and then shut up very quickly about it? Eh? Recall? 'Turns
out, guess what, te DNA warrants it! Know what I mean? <wink>

Grantland

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:22:19 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> OK, you've reached delusional status now.

>How so?

Your refusla to see reality.

>> 3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
>> Oregon started issuing them today.
>
>3,500 invalid marriage licenses.

Legal in San Francisco County. There has been no court order
declaring them void.

And there is no law in Oregon about gay marriage, so the several
hundred marriages there are legal throughout the state.

Seattle is next, then Mass.
>
>> You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
>> marriages are a reality. Deal with it.
>
>I have no reason to pout or whine about it, the fact remains that marriage
>requires persons of the opposite so same-sex marriage is impossible. Deal
>with that.

Except that in five states the courts have said otherwise.

>> I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
>> "because I said so."
>
>You're finished with me? What did you think you were doing with me? I have
>presented a cogent argument, you just do not understand the issue.

No, you haven't. You presented a "because I say so" argument.

Want to present an argument? Fine. *Why* does marriage require the
opposite genders? Give me concrete reasons.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:26:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
>includes unions of humans and animals.

Can the sheep give informed consenst, either by signing its name or by
making a mark witnessed by a court officicial attesting that it
understands the obligations of marriage. Go look up the word
"consent." To be married one must be a consensting adult.

You can not be forced to marry.

You have to have either the legal status to sign a contract, or have
permission from a guardian and convince a court official that this is
what you really want.

Sheep fail on both counts.

Now, I know this is difficult dfor you, but we are discussing
relations because *adult humans*. No sheep. No 4 year olds. No
corpses. Living people who can give informed consenst in a legally
recognized manner.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your refusla to see reality.
>

My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can the sheep give informed consenst, either by signing its name or by
> making a mark witnessed by a court officicial attesting that it
> understands the obligations of marriage. Go look up the word
> "consent." To be married one must be a consensting adult.
>

Not if I choose to define it otherwise.


>
> You can not be forced to marry.
>
> You have to have either the legal status to sign a contract, or have
> permission from a guardian and convince a court official that this is
> what you really want.
>
> Sheep fail on both counts.
>
> Now, I know this is difficult dfor you, but we are discussing
> relations because *adult humans*. No sheep. No 4 year olds. No
> corpses. Living people who can give informed consenst in a legally
> recognized manner.
>

Is it only homosexuals that have the right to redefine marriage to their
liking?

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Your refusla to see reality.
> >
>
> My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!
>
>

Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
variations?

Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Can the sheep give informed consenst, either by signing its name or by
> > making a mark witnessed by a court officicial attesting that it
> > understands the obligations of marriage. Go look up the word
> > "consent." To be married one must be a consensting adult.
> >
>
> Not if I choose to define it otherwise.
>
>
> >
> > You can not be forced to marry.
> >
> > You have to have either the legal status to sign a contract, or have
> > permission from a guardian and convince a court official that this is
> > what you really want.
> >
> > Sheep fail on both counts.
> >
> > Now, I know this is difficult dfor you, but we are discussing
> > relations because *adult humans*. No sheep. No 4 year olds. No
> > corpses. Living people who can give informed consenst in a legally
> > recognized manner.
> >
>
> Is it only homosexuals that have the right to redefine marriage to their
> liking?

How about orthodox Muslims? What about their polygamy? Right there in
their holy book, with as much evidence supporting it as the bible.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
> repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
> variations?
>

It isn't.


>
> Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
> it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.
>

I've posted nothing like that.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:00:03 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Your refusal to see reality.
>
>My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!

Not really. You've been repeatl\ing the same bloody statement over
and over.

You snipped this:

Want to present an argument? Fine. *Why* does marriage require the
opposite genders? Give me concrete reasons.

Well?

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Douglas Berry > wrote:

> >> Your refusal to see reality.
> >
> >My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!
>
> Not really. You've been repeatl\ing the same bloody statement over
> and over.
>
> You snipped this:
>
> Want to present an argument? Fine. *Why* does marriage require the
> opposite genders? Give me concrete reasons.
>
> Well?


If you're going to demand others answer your questions; why not you
answer questions asked of you??


--Mike

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

>In article >,
wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
>> >> and no "same sex" "marriages exit.
>> >>
>> >
>> >With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
>> >Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
>> >since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
>> >heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.
>>
>> My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Nice change of subject. It doesn't recognize sexuality of any type. By
>your logic, there's no recognition of heterosexual marriage -- or any
>other type of marriage.
>
>Following your interesting logic, there's no recognition of
>Klinefelter's syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency with failure of
>Mullerian development, prostatic cancer, ectopic pregnancy,
>heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, hyperemesis
>gravidarum, gamete in-vitro transfer, the missionary position or any
>other position, masturbation, androgens, mineralocorticoids, estrogens,
>progestins, etc. All of these, I take it, are prohibited.

Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about "cruel
and unusual punishment).

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:26:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> *AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does.
>>
>
>Now you're catching on!
>
>
>>
>> The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
>> subject to redefinition from time to time.
>>
>
>Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
>includes unions of humans and animals.
>
Good Lord, that means that the Aussies "waltzing matildas" are....no, I refuse
to go there :-)

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:23:11 -0500, Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

>In article . net>,
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Your refusla to see reality.
>> >
>>
>> My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!
>>
>>
>
>Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
>repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
>variations?
>
>Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
>it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.

California law (for one) says that it does not exist.

Al Minyard

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Howard Berkowitz >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the
> >> >> Constitution,
> >> >> and no "same sex" "marriages exit.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
> >> >Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
> >> >since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
> >> >heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.
> >>
> >> My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >Nice change of subject. It doesn't recognize sexuality of any type. By
> >your logic, there's no recognition of heterosexual marriage -- or any
> >other type of marriage.
> >
> >Following your interesting logic, there's no recognition of
> >Klinefelter's syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency with failure of
> >Mullerian development, prostatic cancer, ectopic pregnancy,
> >heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, hyperemesis
> >gravidarum, gamete in-vitro transfer, the missionary position or any
> >other position, masturbation, androgens, mineralocorticoids, estrogens,
> >progestins, etc. All of these, I take it, are prohibited.
>
> Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
> in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about
> "cruel
> and unusual punishment).

And, until very recently and only with respect to Federal officers,
there's been no Federal law about murder, has there? So suddenly does
there need to be a constitutional amendment about it?

Let's not even touch the general "homosexuality is a choice" issue, and
deal with something much more clearly biologically determined.

During fetal development, there is a phase called Mullerian
differentiation where the enzyme 5-alpha reductase needs to be expressed
for a fetus with XY chromosomes to develop male sex organs. There is a
genetic disorder of 5-alpha reductase insensitivity (sometimes
deficiency) in which a genotypic male fetus does not respond to the
Mullerian process, and is born as a phenotypic female.

Such people may, indeed, quite naturally develop as very beautiful
women, with visually normal female external organs. They are, of course,
sterile, but the reason for the sterility won't be determined until
someone does a chromosomal analysis.

So now you have the situation where two people, one considered a man and
one considered a woman by themselves and everyone around them, fall in
love and marry. They want children, go to a fertility clinic, and
discover there's a little problem -- Marilyn is, at the chromosomal
level, a man. There was no sexual reassignment surgery, hormone
treatment, or indeed any reason to suspect a problem.

What do you do now? Force them to annul a marriage licensed and
performed in good faith by everyone concerned?

What if they get engaged and happen to discover Marilyn's genetic
makeup? Is that a marriage of two men?

This is not an imaginary condition; check any standard medical text on
physiology or embryology.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:23:11 -0500, Howard Berkowitz >
> wrote:
>
> >In article . net>,
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Your refusla to see reality.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
> >repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
> >variations?
> >
> >Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
> >it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.
>
> California law (for one) says that it does not exist.

Then if the California legislature changed the law, would you agree it
existed, at least in California (pause for obligatory California joke)?
It's certainly within the power of that legislature to do so.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
> > repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
> > variations?
> >
>
> It isn't.

Than what is "explaining"?
>
>
> >
> > Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
> > it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.
> >
>
> I've posted nothing like that.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:26:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> *AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does.
>>>
>>
>>Now you're catching on!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
>>> subject to redefinition from time to time.
>>>
>>
>>Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
>>includes unions of humans and animals.
>>
>Good Lord, that means that the Aussies "waltzing matildas" are....no, I refuse
>to go there :-)
>
>Al Minyard

Well, they won't give you any back talk and they never complain
of headaches anyway... :)
--

-Gord.

[Yeff]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 02:56:38 GMT, Gord wrote:

> Well, they won't give you any back talk and they never complain
> of headaches anyway... :)

Don't let Gord pull the wool over your eyes. Marrying sheep is just baaad.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
>in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about "cruel
>and unusual punishment).
>
>Al Minyard

I see...I take it that you're a man, right?...can you tell me at
what age you chose to be a man?
--

-Gord.

[Eugene Griessel]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Howard Berkowitz >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> > >> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article >,
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the
> > >> >> Constitution,
> > >> >> and no "same sex" "marriages exit.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
> > >> >Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
> > >> >since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
> > >> >heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.
> > >>
> > >> My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.
> > >>
> > >> Al Minyard
> > >
> > >Nice change of subject. It doesn't recognize sexuality of any type. By
> > >your logic, there's no recognition of heterosexual marriage -- or any
> > >other type of marriage.
> > >
> > >Following your interesting logic, there's no recognition of
> > >Klinefelter's syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency with failure of
> > >Mullerian development, prostatic cancer, ectopic pregnancy,
> > >heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, hyperemesis
> > >gravidarum, gamete in-vitro transfer, the missionary position or any
> > >other position, masturbation, androgens, mineralocorticoids, estrogens,
> > >progestins, etc. All of these, I take it, are prohibited.
> >
> > Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
> > in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about
> > "cruel
> > and unusual punishment).
>
> And, until very recently and only with respect to Federal officers,
> there's been no Federal law about murder, has there? So suddenly does
> there need to be a constitutional amendment about it?
>
> Let's not even touch the general "homosexuality is a choice" issue, and
> deal with something much more clearly biologically determined.
>
> During fetal development, there is a phase called Mullerian
> differentiation where the enzyme 5-alpha reductase needs to be expressed
> for a fetus with XY chromosomes to develop male sex organs. There is a
> genetic disorder of 5-alpha reductase insensitivity (sometimes
> deficiency) in which a genotypic male fetus does not respond to the
> Mullerian process, and is born as a phenotypic female.
>
> Such people may, indeed, quite naturally develop as very beautiful
> women, with visually normal female external organs. They are, of course,
> sterile, but the reason for the sterility won't be determined until
> someone does a chromosomal analysis.
>
> So now you have the situation where two people, one considered a man and
> one considered a woman by themselves and everyone around them, fall in
> love and marry. They want children, go to a fertility clinic, and
> discover there's a little problem -- Marilyn is, at the chromosomal
> level, a man. There was no sexual reassignment surgery, hormone
> treatment, or indeed any reason to suspect a problem.
>
> What do you do now? Force them to annul a marriage licensed and
> performed in good faith by everyone concerned?
>
> What if they get engaged and happen to discover Marilyn's genetic
> makeup? Is that a marriage of two men?
>
> This is not an imaginary condition; check any standard medical text on
> physiology or embryology.

Excellent point! I had not even given pseudo-hermaphroditism or
hermaphroditism a thought. And some of those case can be really
interesting, albeit fairly rare. But getting back to transgender
surgery, I do not know how the States treats such cases but here,
after surgery, they may apply for "official" re-assignment and are
then registered by the state under their new sexual status. So when
you marry Geraldine (born Gerald) everything is official and above
board. I wonder how the man having the 10 quid argument would deal
with that?

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article >,
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> > > >> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >In article >,
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the
> > > >> >> Constitution,
> > > >> >> and no "same sex" "marriages exit.
> > > >> >>

> >
> > And, until very recently and only with respect to Federal officers,
> > there's been no Federal law about murder, has there? So suddenly does
> > there need to be a constitutional amendment about it?
> >
> > Let's not even touch the general "homosexuality is a choice" issue, and
> > deal with something much more clearly biologically determined.
> >
> > During fetal development, there is a phase called Mullerian
> > differentiation where the enzyme 5-alpha reductase needs to be
> > expressed
> > for a fetus with XY chromosomes to develop male sex organs. There is a
> > genetic disorder of 5-alpha reductase insensitivity (sometimes
> > deficiency) in which a genotypic male fetus does not respond to the
> > Mullerian process, and is born as a phenotypic female.
> >
> > Such people may, indeed, quite naturally develop as very beautiful
> > women, with visually normal female external organs. They are, of
> > course,
> > sterile, but the reason for the sterility won't be determined until
> > someone does a chromosomal analysis.
> >
> > So now you have the situation where two people, one considered a man
> > and
> > one considered a woman by themselves and everyone around them, fall in
> > love and marry. They want children, go to a fertility clinic, and
> > discover there's a little problem -- Marilyn is, at the chromosomal
> > level, a man. There was no sexual reassignment surgery, hormone
> > treatment, or indeed any reason to suspect a problem.
> >
> > What do you do now? Force them to annul a marriage licensed and
> > performed in good faith by everyone concerned?
> >
> > What if they get engaged and happen to discover Marilyn's genetic
> > makeup? Is that a marriage of two men?
> >
> > This is not an imaginary condition; check any standard medical text on
> > physiology or embryology.
>
> Excellent point! I had not even given pseudo-hermaphroditism or
> hermaphroditism a thought. And some of those case can be really
> interesting, albeit fairly rare. But getting back to transgender
> surgery, I do not know how the States treats such cases but here,
> after surgery, they may apply for "official" re-assignment and are
> then registered by the state under their new sexual status. So when
> you marry Geraldine (born Gerald) everything is official and above
> board. I wonder how the man having the 10 quid argument would deal
> with that?

Eugene,

I picked a real medical example, deliberately, that was more challenging
than the gender dysphoria associated with most transgender reassignment.
In this case, it wouldn't even qualify as pseudo-hermaphrodism.
Marilyn, short of abdominal surgical exploration or chromosomal
analysis, _is_ a woman to any routine physical, and presumably thinks,
reasonably, that she is one. So does her fiance. Let us make them both
Catholics and the priest performing the premarital counseling would have
no reason to suspect.

Even without getting into things of the mind, sexuality and gender
simply aren't as simple as some would like them to be. In the example I
cited, neither party would have any homosexual ideation or any gender
dysphoria. Each, with perfectly good reason, considers their partner of
the other biological gender. A physician performing a routine physical
on either would have little reason to suspect anything. I suspect even
culposcopy would show a sad malformation of the cervix, but still no
reason to suspect an actual sexual misidentification.

[Eugene Griessel]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote:


>Eugene,
>
>I picked a real medical example, deliberately, that was more challenging
>than the gender dysphoria associated with most transgender reassignment.
>In this case, it wouldn't even qualify as pseudo-hermaphrodism.

I don't know is someone has coined a new category for this type of
Intersex syndrome but it used to get lumped under "true
hermaphroditism" a couple of decades back. The definition of said
syndrome requiring only the presence of both ovarian and testicular
tissue and not necessarily ambiguity in sexual organs although this
was possible. I know of one such case (married to distant family) ,
the lady was a stunning 28 year old brunette, unable to conceive for 6
years had entered a rather intensive fertility program at a leading
teaching hospital where it was discovered that one of her ovaries was
basically a testicle. I think it was the right one - cannot remember.
After this serious genetic analysis was done and IIRC it was something
like 46XY chromosomal structure. Apparently there was malformation of
the ovarian structure but the uterus appeared normal. The
psychological problems associated with this were, at that time
possibly badly handled, quite severe eventually leading to divorce.
Also, at the time, a lot of the older family members were deeply
ashamed and into sackcloth and ashes and breast-beating mode. As if
either of the couple could be held to blame.

I wonder what happened to them - haven't seen or heard of either in 20
or more years.

[Firelock]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
> > we're both men.
> >
> > I am being discriminated against because of my sex.
> >
>
> No you're not.

A government decision solely based on which genitals
the government thinks are between the legs of the citizens
affected by the decision. What else could it be except
for discrimination based on sex?

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Firelock" > wrote in message
om...
>
> A government decision solely based on which genitals
> the government thinks are between the legs of the citizens
> affected by the decision. What else could it be except
> for discrimination based on sex?
>

It's not a government decision.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Firelock says...
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
>> > we're both men.
>> >
>> > I am being discriminated against because of my sex.
>> >
>>
>> No you're not.
>
>A government decision solely based on which genitals
>the government thinks are between the legs of the citizens
>affected by the decision. What else could it be except
>for discrimination based on sex?
>

I'm sure that back in the fifties when there were laws forbidding a balck person
from marrying a white person there were plenty of guys like Steven who were
claiming that it couldn't possibly be racial discrimination because they were
free to marry "their own kind."

The definition of whom can marry each other has obviously changed in the 200
plus years that this country has been around...

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article et>, Steven P.
>>McNicoll says...
>
>
>"Firelock" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> A government decision solely based on which genitals
>> the government thinks are between the legs of the citizens
>> affected by the decision. What else could it be except
>> for discrimination based on sex?
>>
>
>It's not a government decision.
>
>

Whose decision was it then?

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Emma Anne]

Replacement_Tommel > wrote:

> "I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
> should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

I haven't seen that one for a while - though I had it almost memorized
at one point from reading it too many times. And I think I can *still*
recite a good bit of One Fish Two Fish from memory. . .

[Doug Anderson]

(Emma Anne) writes:

> Replacement_Tommel > wrote:
>
> > "I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
> > should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss
>
> I haven't seen that one for a while - though I had it almost memorized
> at one point from reading it too many times. And I think I can *still*
> recite a good bit of One Fish Two Fish from memory. . .

Shameful parenting #517: I used to turn two or three pages of "One
Fish Two Fish" at the same time when my kids would insist on me
reading it to them.

[[email protected]]

Doug Anderson > wrote:

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Larry Kessler" > wrote:
>>
>> *AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does.
>
>Now you're catching on!

But you, clearly, are not.

>> The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
>> subject to redefinition from time to time.
>
>Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
>includes unions of humans and animals.

Redefining marriage to permit members of the same sex to enter into it
would not remove the legal requirement that they both be capable of
informed consent. Sheep can't give informed consent, because they
lack the mental ability to understand the concept of marriage. Sorry
to disappoint you.

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Douglas Berry" > wrote:
>>
>> Can the sheep give informed consenst, either by signing its name or by
>> making a mark witnessed by a court officicial attesting that it
>> understands the obligations of marriage. Go look up the word
>> "consent." To be married one must be a consensting adult.
>
>Not if I choose to define it otherwise.

You aren't the one doing the defining.

[Firelock]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Firelock" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > A government decision solely based on which genitals
> > the government thinks are between the legs of the citizens
> > affected by the decision. What else could it be except
> > for discrimination based on sex?
> >
>
> It's not a government decision.

Whose then? Your god's? The *government* is the body that,
when Alex and Sam come in for a marriage license application,
look in Alex and Sam's pants to make sure that they have just
one penis and one vagina between them. Tell me again, why
should we the people impel the government to care?

If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex,
then don't. If you think it is against your religion
for people to do so, then don't join a church that's
willing to perform a religious same-sex marriage service.
If you think that you should be able to tell other
grownups who they can and can't marry, get over yourself.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Married 8 years, and still wondering how the marriages
of other people are supposed to harm my own.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> But you, clearly, are not.
>

If it seems that way to you you do not understand the issue.


>
> Redefining marriage to permit members of the same sex to enter into it
> would not remove the legal requirement that they both be capable of
> informed consent. Sheep can't give informed consent, because they
> lack the mental ability to understand the concept of marriage. Sorry
> to disappoint you.
>

If marriage can be arbitrarily redefined to include members of the same sex
then it can also be redefined to remove informed consent.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> You aren't the one doing the defining.
>

Gays have the right to redefine marriage but animal lovers do not? Why are
you opposed to equal rights?

[[email protected]]

Larry Kessler > wrote:
--cut--
>Redefining marriage to permit members of the same sex to enter into it
>would not remove the legal requirement that they both be capable of
>informed consent. Sheep can't give informed consent, because they
>lack the mental ability to understand the concept of marriage. Sorry
>to disappoint you.

That's a slippery slope that you're treading there Larry...you're
saying that before a human can consent to marriage he/she could
be challenged to show that he/she has the mental capacity to
understand the concept of marriage. Pretty hard to prove I'd say.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

(Firelock) wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
>> "Firelock" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >
>> > A government decision solely based on which genitals
>> > the government thinks are between the legs of the citizens
>> > affected by the decision. What else could it be except
>> > for discrimination based on sex?
>> >
>>
>> It's not a government decision.
>
>Whose then? Your god's? The *government* is the body that,
>when Alex and Sam come in for a marriage license application,
>look in Alex and Sam's pants to make sure that they have just
>one penis and one vagina between them. Tell me again, why
>should we the people impel the government to care?
>
>If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex,
>then don't. If you think it is against your religion
>for people to do so, then don't join a church that's
>willing to perform a religious same-sex marriage service.
>If you think that you should be able to tell other
>grownups who they can and can't marry, get over yourself.
>
>Walt Smith
>Firelock on DALNet
>Married 8 years, and still wondering how the marriages
>of other people are supposed to harm my own.

Of course...a voice of reason in the silly forest.
--

-Gord.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Steven
P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You aren't the one doing the defining.
> >
>
> Gays have the right to redefine marriage but animal lovers do not? Why
> are
> you opposed to equal rights?
>
>

Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have raised informed
consent as a ground for marriage, which you ignore in order to change to
straw men -- or straw sheep.

I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
hard science with respect to gender.

[Emma Anne]

Doug Anderson > wrote:

> (Emma Anne) writes:
>
> > Replacement_Tommel > wrote:
> >
> > > "I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom
> > > we, too, should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss
> >
> > I haven't seen that one for a while - though I had it almost memorized
> > at one point from reading it too many times. And I think I can *still*
> > recite a good bit of One Fish Two Fish from memory. . .
>
> Shameful parenting #517: I used to turn two or three pages of "One
> Fish Two Fish" at the same time when my kids would insist on me
> reading it to them.

I distinctly remember rigging Candyland so the game would hurry up and
end already.

I am quite enjoying the age they are at now, though. Having rather
stunted reading tastes, I like to read their books. And they can cook
things I like to eat, and (kind of) clean up afterward.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have
> raised informed consent as a ground for marriage, which you
> ignore in order to change to straw men -- or straw sheep.
>

If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.


>
> I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
> hard science with respect to gender.
>

That's not an issue.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have
> > raised informed consent as a ground for marriage, which you
> > ignore in order to change to straw men -- or straw sheep.
> >
>
> If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
> also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.


Has ABSOLUTELY ANYONE proposed that except people like you who don't
want any changes? Do you have any data that says people are out to marry
sheep, other than perhaps the existence of the inflatable sheep product,
"I Love Ewe"?
>
>
> >
> > I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
> > hard science with respect to gender.
> >
>
> That's not an issue.
>
>
Because? You keep saying gender is an issue. Gender is not always clear
by objective standards.

Oh. I'm sorry. I forgot. Nothing is an issue if it might cast
aspersions on your positions.

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:00:46 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>>
>>Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
>>in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about "cruel
>>and unusual punishment).
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>I see...I take it that you're a man, right?...can you tell me at
>what age you chose to be a man?

Somewhere around the age of 13.


Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:28:10 -0500, Howard Berkowitz > wrote:


>Even without getting into things of the mind, sexuality and gender
>simply aren't as simple as some would like them to be. In the example I
>cited, neither party would have any homosexual ideation or any gender
>dysphoria. Each, with perfectly good reason, considers their partner of
>the other biological gender. A physician performing a routine physical
>on either would have little reason to suspect anything. I suspect even
>culposcopy would show a sad malformation of the cervix, but still no
>reason to suspect an actual sexual misidentification.

No, you picked an extremely rare medical condition that has nothing
to do with homosexuality. When you have to reach that far for an argument
you are, in effect, saying that you have no logical argument.

This has nothing to do with either the military or aviation. End of thread.

Al Minyard

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:01:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
>also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

And if we think about it really really hard, and yell really really
loud, we can re-define sunrise as occurring in the West.

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:00:46 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>>>
>>>Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
>>>in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about "cruel
>>>and unusual punishment).
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>>
>>I see...I take it that you're a man, right?...can you tell me at
>>what age you chose to be a man?
>
>Somewhere around the age of 13.
>
>
>Al Minyard

Remarkable...do you remember consciously making that
choice?...what factors convinced you?...
--

-Gord.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:20:05 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>If marriage can be arbitrarily redefined to include members of the same sex
>then it can also be redefined to remove informed consent.

Thst would require removing the functional basis of contract law and
most criminal laws. So you're reaching.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:25:31 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Gord Beaman" ) came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

>Larry Kessler > wrote:
> --cut--
>>Redefining marriage to permit members of the same sex to enter into it
>>would not remove the legal requirement that they both be capable of
>>informed consent. Sheep can't give informed consent, because they
>>lack the mental ability to understand the concept of marriage. Sorry
>>to disappoint you.
>
>That's a slippery slope that you're treading there Larry...you're
>saying that before a human can consent to marriage he/she could
>be challenged to show that he/she has the mental capacity to
>understand the concept of marriage. Pretty hard to prove I'd say.

Actually, it's very easy to prove. The point has been made in several
cases involving the developmentally disabled when they wish to marry.
In general, it boils down to a couple of issues.

Can the person take care of themselves in modern society? Can he/she
buy groceries, remember to wear a raincoat in a storm, ask for help,
remember where he/she lives, etc.

Can the person acknowledge, in writing or verbally, to a judge's
stisfaction that he or she understands what marriage is, and what it
requires? This is a pure judgement call on the part of the judge,
burt most are willing to accept that DD's who can explain themselves
can understand what they are asking for.



--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thst would require removing the functional basis of contract law and
> most criminal laws. So you're reaching.
>

Not at all. We can either redefine marriage arbitrarily or we cannot. If
we can redefine it we can make it anything we choose.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> >>>Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
> >>>in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about
> >>>"cruel
> >>>and unusual punishment).
> >>>
> >>>Al Minyard
> >>
> >>I see...I take it that you're a man, right?...can you tell me at
> >>what age you chose to be a man?
> >
> >Somewhere around the age of 13.


>
> Remarkable...do you remember consciously making that
> choice?...what factors convinced you?...


She said yes?


--Mike

[Aloha]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
> also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

If by "we", you mean the people of the US, then you are merely stating
the obvious. It might take a constitutional amendment or two, but
there is, in theory, a process for doing it. You don't even need the
"if" part. Just this alone is true, in a technical sense:

We can define marriage so that informed consent is not
a requirement.

And my response is: So what? There are many things you can do that
you won't do, right?

The real issue is whether or not the legal argument used to justify
the marriage of two men can also be used to justify nonconsensual
marriage. That is, if we make gay marriage legal, will there be a
SCOTUS case that will allow nonconsensual marriage. If you think
that's true, then you are in black helicopter land, and there's no
point in saying anything more.

On the other hand, more problematic is whether or not an argument for
gay marriage could be used to justify marriage between siblings. That
is a lot less clear, and has been debated between legal scholars of
all persuasions in the blogosphere.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of gay marriage. I'm only saying
that trying to claim that legalizing gay marriage might lead to
legalizing nonconsensual marriage is silly. There are other, more
persuasive, arguments against gay marriage.

[Ajax Telamon]

"Aloha" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>...
> > If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
> > also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.
>
> If by "we", you mean the people of the US, then you are merely stating
> the obvious. It might take a constitutional amendment or two, but
> there is, in theory, a process for doing it. You don't even need the
> "if" part. Just this alone is true, in a technical sense:
>
> We can define marriage so that informed consent is not
> a requirement.
>
> And my response is: So what? There are many things you can do that
> you won't do, right?
>

I seem to recall there is Biblical precedent for non consentual marriage. I
do not have the chapter and verse but I think there is a Mosaic law that
allows a man who rapes your daughter to pay a fine then marry her. It seems
there are some consensual issues there. The idea of marriage changes over
time. I wonder how many folks today would consider that Solomon with all his
wives and concubines would fit into their definition of a good marriage.
Take care,
--
Ajax Telamon
"Victory at all costs, victory
in spite of all terror, victory
however long and hard the
road may be; for without victory,
there is no survival."
Winston Churchill:
speech, May 13, 1940

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:44:40 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Thst would require removing the functional basis of contract law and
>> most criminal laws. So you're reaching.
>>
>
>Not at all. We can either redefine marriage arbitrarily or we cannot. If
>we can redefine it we can make it anything we choose.

So long as we maintain the basic concept of a contract between
consenting adults, or juveniles with parental or court consent.

Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> So long as we maintain the basic concept of a contract between
> consenting adults, or juveniles with parental or court consent.
>
> Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.
>

Why do you discriminate against animal lovers? Why are you opposed to equal
rights?

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:34:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
> wrote:


>
>Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.

http://www.afunworld.com/img8.htm

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:44:29 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So long as we maintain the basic concept of a contract between
>> consenting adults, or juveniles with parental or court consent.
>>
>> Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.
>
>Why do you discriminate against animal lovers? Why are you opposed to equal
>rights?

The moment you can show a sheep who can give inforned consent, go for
it. However, until you can do that, you are exploiting a creature
that cannot decide to take part... much like a child molestor.

Now, are you going to give up on this? And address your bizarre claim
that a legal contract somehow requires opposite genders?

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> The moment you can show a sheep who can give inforned consent,
> go for it. However, until you can do that, you are exploiting a creature
> that cannot decide to take part... much like a child molestor.
>

My sheep loves me.


>
> Now, are you going to give up on this?
>

Just using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.


>
> And address your bizarre claim
> that a legal contract somehow requires opposite genders?
>

A legal contract does not require opposite genders, but a marriage does.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The moment you can show a sheep who can give inforned consent,
>> go for it. However, until you can do that, you are exploiting a creature
>> that cannot decide to take part... much like a child molestor.
>>
>
>My sheep loves me.
>
>
>>
>> Now, are you going to give up on this?
>>
>
>Just using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.
>
>
>>
>> And address your bizarre claim
>> that a legal contract somehow requires opposite genders?
>>
>
>A legal contract does not require opposite genders, but a marriage does.
>

Isn't a marriage a contract?...
--

-Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Isn't a marriage a contract?...
>

Are all contracts a marriage?

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Isn't a marriage a contract?...
>>
>
>Are all contracts a marriage?
>

That isn't my question Steve...
--

-Gord.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:49:53 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The moment you can show a sheep who can give inforned consent,
>> go for it. However, until you can do that, you are exploiting a creature
>> that cannot decide to take part... much like a child molestor.
>
>My sheep loves me.

Can the sheep clearly announce that, in a way recognizable by a third
party?

>> Now, are you going to give up on this?
>
>Just using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.

Your thought processes, maybe.

>> And address your bizarre claim
>> that a legal contract somehow requires opposite genders?
>
>A legal contract does not require opposite genders, but a marriage does.

In the United States, civil marriage is a legal contract.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the United States, civil marriage is a legal contract.
>

We can redefine it to be anything we choose.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:59:48 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In the United States, civil marriage is a legal contract.
>>
>
>We can redefine it to be anything we choose.

As long as the people involved can legally make contractual decisions.
>

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> As long as the people involved can legally make contractual decisions.
>

Of course.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:01:04 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> As long as the people involved can legally make contractual decisions.
>
>Of course.

Which leaves out children and animals, and leaves us with consenting
adults. Including gay men and women.

Which leaves us back at gay marriages.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which leaves out children and animals, and leaves us with consenting
> adults.
>

It leaves out children but not animals.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Douglas Berry > wrote:

> Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:01:04 GMT, a stranger
> called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> came forth and told this tale in us.military.army
>
> >> As long as the people involved can legally make contractual decisions.
> >
> >Of course.
>
> Which leaves out children and animals, and leaves us with consenting
> adults. Including gay men and women.

As well as siblings and parents.
>
> Which leaves us back at gay marriages.


And back at inter-sibling as well as parent/offspring marriage.



--Mike

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Which leaves out children and animals, and leaves us with consenting
>> adults.
>>
>
>It leaves out children but not animals.
>
I, for one, would be interested in your justification for that
Steve (even giving you the benefit of doubt about children being
animals)
--

-Gord.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:44:13 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Which leaves out children and animals, and leaves us with consenting
>> adults.
>
>It leaves out children but not animals.

Fine. Show me the state codes that allow animals to sign contracts.
Don't come back until you find them.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I, for one, would be interested in your justification for that
> Steve (even giving you the benefit of doubt about children being
> animals)
>

Simple. Animals are not people.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fine. Show me the state codes that allow animals to sign contracts.
> Don't come back until you find them.
>

We're talking about redefining marriage. We make it whatever we want.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Fine. Show me the state codes that allow animals to sign contracts.
>> Don't come back until you find them.
>>
>
>We're talking about redefining marriage. We make it whatever we want.
>
Of course we can, it's a contract isn't it?...being a contract we
can redefine it any way we want to. What's so difficult to
understand about that?
--

-Gord.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:02:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
> wrote:

>>My sheep loves me.
>
>Can the sheep clearly announce that, in a way recognizable by a third
>party?

http://www.afunworld.com/img8.htm

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:31:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
> wrote:

>>> Which leaves out children and animals, and leaves us with consenting
>>> adults.
>>
>>It leaves out children but not animals.
>
>Fine. Show me the state codes that allow animals to sign contracts.
>Don't come back until you find them.

Oxymorons:
"Animal Rights"
"Western Sunrise"
"Same-Sex Marriage"

If we can redefine "marriage" we can redefine "animals".

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(Michael Wise) wrote:
> > Remarkable...do you remember consciously making that
> > choice?...what factors convinced you?...
> She said yes?
<grin>

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:31:38 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Fine. Show me the state codes that allow animals to sign contracts.
>> Don't come back until you find them.
>
>We're talking about redefining marriage. We make it whatever we want.

As long as both parties can legally sign the certificate, or make a
mark witnessed by a court official.

Face it. Gay marriage is going to be legal in at least one sate on
May 17.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> As long as both parties can legally sign the certificate, or make a
> mark witnessed by a court official.
>

Don't be silly. If I can serve the sheep for dinner without it's consent I
can certainly marry it without consent.


>
> Face it. Gay marriage is going to be legal in at least one sate on
> May 17.
>

Gays are free to marry in every state now.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:39:01 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> As long as both parties can legally sign the certificate, or make a
>> mark witnessed by a court official.
>
>Don't be silly. If I can serve the sheep for dinner without it's consent I
>can certainly marry it without consent.

That's not the way the laws are.

>> Face it. Gay marriage is going to be legal in at least one sate on
>> May 17.
>
>Gays are free to marry in every state now.

I shall rephrase, because you are dense. As of May 17th, Same-sex
marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's not the way the laws are.
>

Try to keep up. We're talking about changing the laws.


>
> I shall rephrase, because you are dense.
>

That's no way to talk to your teacher.


>
> As of May 17th, Same-sex
> marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.
>

Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

[Replacement_Tommel]

In article et>, Steven P.
McNicoll says...
>
>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> As long as both parties can legally sign the certificate, or make a
>> mark witnessed by a court official.
>>
>
>Don't be silly. If I can serve the sheep for dinner without it's consent I
>can certainly marry it without consent.
>

Perhaps that is wishful thinking on your part?

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Replacement_Tommel]

In article et>, Steven P.
McNicoll says...
>
>

(snip)

>
>
>>
>> As of May 17th, Same-sex
>> marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.
>>
>
>Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.
>
>

"Marriage requires people of the same race" was a mantra heard prior to the
overturn of the miscregation laws...

The definition of marriage has changed in the United States. It is likely to
change again.

Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get married is
beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right says we have to protect the
santity of marriage when 50% of all marriages between a man and a woman end up
in divorce here in the United States.

-Tom

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Replacement_Tommel" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex
> get married is beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right
> says we have to protect the santity of marriage when 50% of all
> marriages between a man and a woman end up in divorce here in
> the United States.
>

It's not that it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get married,
it's just that it's impossible, and I find it amusing that there are people
that don't understand that.

[Stephen Harding]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
>
>>As of May 17th, Same-sex
>>marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.
>
> Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

Not in Massachusetts beginning March 17.

People in the State House have been attempting to
create language for a constitutional amendment to
define marriage in traditional terms, but no go yet.

Of course, this will surely end up in the Supreme
Court where I'm really not certain what the outcome
will be.


SMH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not in Massachusetts beginning March 17.
>

Yes, even in Massachusetts.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article et>, Steven P.
>>McNicoll says...
>
>
>"Replacement_Tommel" > wrote in
>message ...
>>
>> Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex
>> get married is beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right
>> says we have to protect the santity of marriage when 50% of all
>> marriages between a man and a woman end up in divorce here in
>> the United States.
>>
>
>It's not that it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get married,
>it's just that it's impossible, and I find it amusing that there are people
>that don't understand that.
>

IIRC there have been same-sex marriages in Holland for quite sometime now... of
course, some bigots in this country thought it was "impossible" for whites to
marry blacks because they considered blacks to be animals instead of humans - is
that your line of thinking on why same sex marriages are "impossible?"

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[~Nins~]

Replacement_Tommel wrote:
||| In article et>,
||| Steven P.
|||| McNicoll says...
|||
|||
||| "Replacement_Tommel" > wrote
||| in message ...
||||
|||| Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex
|||| get married is beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right
|||| says we have to protect the santity of marriage when 50% of all
|||| marriages between a man and a woman end up in divorce here in
|||| the United States.
||||
|||
||| It's not that it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get
||| married, it's just that it's impossible, and I find it amusing that
||| there are people that don't understand that.
|||
||
|| IIRC there have been same-sex marriages in Holland for quite
|| sometime now... of course, some bigots in this country thought it
|| was "impossible" for whites to marry blacks because they considered
|| blacks to be animals instead of humans - is that your line of
|| thinking on why same sex marriages are "impossible?"

I'm surprised this debate is still going on in this thread. Stephen, as I
advised you earlier, let it go. Tom, if Stephen is going on the same as I,
it would be based on religious belief as outlayed in the Bible and not
really anything prejudicial in comparison/similarity to what you posted
above, and no am not going to provide any more references than I already
have since the one I gave has them in it. However, I'm just assuming that
is where his argument is stemming from that it is "impossible". There is
separation of Church and State but how far into reality is that?
Legislators in my home state or pressing harder to ban these arrangements (I
shall not refer to them as marriages, sorry). In any event, this is one of
those debates that will go on and on. Both sides have made valid points,
opinions, worthy of consideration; but ultimately, the decision rests with
the voters and elected officials, doesn't it? ;) Stephen, let it go.

I have a simple curiosity question, though. Should this issue really be
discussed in military groups, where there are AD members posting, since the
military as this "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? Doesn't it kind of
infringe upon that policy, even if it is indirectly so? I'm not trying to
argue, but am really curious about it, do you know?

[Raining here, smells so good, sleeping weather, a little chilly though.]

[Felger Carbon]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:TBq5c.17461$1p.306216@attbi_s54...

> Both sides have made valid points,
> opinions, worthy of consideration; but ultimately, the decision
rests with
> the voters and elected officials, doesn't it? ;)

No, the decision does not rest with the voters and elected officials,
nor should it IMHO. Individual rights in a society should not be
subject to votes and elected officials. For example, Brown vs Board
of Education, which was decided (properly, IMHO) by the courts. No
smiley face here.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Replacement_Tommel" > wrote in
message ...
>
> of course, some bigots in this country thought it was "impossible"
> for whites to marry blacks because they considered blacks to be
> animals instead of humans - is that your line of thinking on why
> same sex marriages are "impossible?"
>

No, same-sex marriage is impossible because marriage requires persons of the
opposite sex.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:TBq5c.17461$1p.306216@attbi_s54...
>
> I'm surprised this debate is still going on in this thread. Stephen, as I
> advised you earlier, let it go.
>

Can't. It's too much fun!

[~Nins~]

Felger Carbon wrote:
|| "~Nins~" > wrote in message
|| news:TBq5c.17461$1p.306216@attbi_s54...
||
||| Both sides have made valid points,
||| opinions, worthy of consideration; but ultimately, the decision
||| rests with the voters and elected officials, doesn't it? ;)
||
|| No, the decision does not rest with the voters and elected officials,
|| nor should it IMHO. Individual rights in a society should not be
|| subject to votes and elected officials. For example, Brown vs Board
|| of Education, which was decided (properly, IMHO) by the courts. No
|| smiley face here.

So, if a State needs to make an amendment or modify one to its Constitution
to address this issue, it does not rest with the voters? Tell me, why
doesn't it or why won't it eventually rest with the voters, at least in some
locations? Do not voters put the officials into office? You referenced a
Supreme Court case, but do not those selected for that Court have to be
confirmed by Congress, and who puts those who do the confirming into office?
Hmmm? You've got quite the attitude, btw. No smiley face here, either. ;-/

[~Nins~]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" > wrote in message
|| news:TBq5c.17461$1p.306216@attbi_s54...
|||
||| I'm surprised this debate is still going on in this thread.
||| Stephen, as I advised you earlier, let it go.
|||
||
|| Can't. It's too much fun!

LOL! Well alright then, wouldn't want to interfere with anyone's having a
good time. Knock yourself out. <G>

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:53:34 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That's not the way the laws are.
>
>Try to keep up. We're talking about changing the laws.

And you are welcome to try to change them so you can marry sheep. Of
course, that would require a complete change of the laws on consent
and contracts.

>> I shall rephrase, because you are dense.
>
>That's no way to talk to your teacher.

LOL! You are a bloody lousy teacher, partner. Teachers explain
things, you just repeat the same thing over and over.

>> As of May 17th, Same-sex
>> marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.
>
>Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

Not according to the courts.

One more chance before you get plonked: *Why* does marriage require
that the people be of the opposite sex. Give me reasons.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you are welcome to try to change them so you can marry sheep.
>

If they can be changed to permit same-sex marriage they can be changed to
permit human-animal marriage.


>
> Of course, that would require a complete change of the laws on consent
> and contracts.
>

Why?


>
> LOL! You are a bloody lousy teacher, partner. Teachers explain
> things, you just repeat the same thing over and over.
>

I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable to
understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning deficiency?


>
> Not according to the courts.
>

It's not up to the courts.

[~Nins~]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
|| ...
|||
||| And you are welcome to try to change them so you can marry sheep.
|||
||
|| If they can be changed to permit same-sex marriage they can be
|| changed to permit human-animal marriage.

Uhh, Stephen, even I think that's reaching a bit far to provide argument.
Maybe you should try a different one? Perhaps? I presented argument, and a
valid one at that, earlier in the thread, go off of it but in from a
civil/legal standpoint. The human-animal thing just isn't going to work. ;)
[Just trying to help.]

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:T8G5c.22199$Cb.470749@attbi_s51...
>
> Uhh, Stephen, even I think that's reaching a bit far to provide argument.
> Maybe you should try a different one? Perhaps? I presented argument, and
a
> valid one at that, earlier in the thread, go off of it but in from a
> civil/legal standpoint. The human-animal thing just isn't going to work.
;)
>

Why not? Human-animal marriage is just as valid as same-sex marriage.

[~Nins~]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" > wrote in message
|| news:T8G5c.22199$Cb.470749@attbi_s51...
|||
||| Uhh, Stephen, even I think that's reaching a bit far to provide
||| argument. Maybe you should try a different one? Perhaps? I
||| presented argument, and a valid one at that, earlier in the thread,
||| go off of it but in from a civil/legal standpoint. The
||| human-animal thing just isn't going to work. ;)
|||
||
|| Why not? Human-animal marriage is just as valid as same-sex
|| marriage.

You're getting into a whole other area there. Different *species*. You do
what you want, but that is an argument that isn't going to work nor is a
valid one. But just for S&Gs, why do you think it would be valid? For you,
what are the elements that constitute marriage, and what is your definition
of the word? What source do you draw on to either prove or disprove your
argument(s)? When the challenge is presented to you, what they are
presenting is a request for something (i.e., references) to substantiate the
statements you have made. So far, that is what is being made, statements,
keep in mind the questions I posted here. Hope this helps. :)

[Larry Kessler]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Larry Kessler" > wrote:
>> >
>> > You aren't the one doing the defining.
>>
>> Gays have the right to redefine marriage but animal lovers do not?
>> Why are you opposed to equal rights?
>
>Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have raised informed
>consent as a ground for marriage, which you ignore in order to change to
>straw men -- or straw sheep.
>
>I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
>hard science with respect to gender.

Don't confuse him with the facts. It just makes him mad, but it
doesn't make him any more informed.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:MxG5c.23130$1p.432539@attbi_s54...
>
> You're getting into a whole other area there. Different *species*. You
do
> what you want, but that is an argument that isn't going to work nor is a
> valid one. But just for S&Gs, why do you think it would be valid?
>

I don't think human-animal marriage would be valid, but it would certainly
be just as valid as same-sex marriage.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't confuse him with the facts. It just makes him mad, but it
> doesn't make him any more informed.
>

Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
argument.

Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

[~Nins~]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" > wrote in message
|| news:MxG5c.23130$1p.432539@attbi_s54...
|||
||| You're getting into a whole other area there. Different *species*.
||| You do what you want, but that is an argument that isn't going to
||| work nor is a valid one. But just for S&Gs, why do you think it
||| would be valid?
|||
||
|| I don't think human-animal marriage would be valid, but it would
|| certainly be just as valid as same-sex marriage.

Why? How? On what source do you base this statement? So, you think
same-sex marriage is valid? Note what you said, how you worded it, "...just
as valid as same-sex marriage". You could re-word it as follows: Same-sex
marriage is just as invalid as human-animal marriages would be. Then,
provide the *why*, give reasons to back that up and provide references from
which you rely on to make the points in your argument. [Like I said, am
just trying to help, you sinking here. LoL.] Write down a major
point/statement of your argument, then do a search on the net for refs that
would support it. Clearly, the biblical sources don't count with the
opposing side, although it really should in my opinion, so find other
sources. http://www.findlaw.com/
Or, go to history sites to see if anything in historical events is present
to support, precedence. You get the idea now?

You're right, this is kinda fun. I'm approaching it from a different angle,
coaching, yeah I like it. >;-) hehe

Which group are you posting from?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:BYG5c.22556$Cb.472121@attbi_s51...
>
> Why? How? On what source do you base this statement?
>

Logic.


>
> So, you think same-sex marriage is valid?
>

Nope.


>
> Note what you said, how you worded it, "...just as valid as
> same-sex marriage". You could re-word it as follows: Same-sex
> marriage is just as invalid as human-animal marriages would be.
>

Yup, that works too.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <T8G5c.22199$Cb.470749@attbi_s51>, "~Nins~"
> wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> || "Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> || ...
> |||
> ||| And you are welcome to try to change them so you can marry sheep.
> |||
> ||
> || If they can be changed to permit same-sex marriage they can be
> || changed to permit human-animal marriage.
>
> Uhh, Stephen, even I think that's reaching a bit far to provide argument.
> Maybe you should try a different one? Perhaps? I presented argument,
> and a
> valid one at that, earlier in the thread, go off of it but in from a
> civil/legal standpoint. The human-animal thing just isn't going to work.
> ;)
> [Just trying to help.]
>
>
>
>

Does the sex of the sheep matter?

It may not be an irrelevant analogy, since Mr. McNicoll does seem to be
pulling the wool over certain eyes.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:26:17 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Don't confuse him with the facts. It just makes him mad, but it
>> doesn't make him any more informed.
>>
>
>Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
>argument.

You haven't used a single fact. You wouldn't recognize a fact if one
jumped up on your desk and began singing "Happy Facts Are Here Again"

All you have been doing is making declarations; one with no support.
When declare that marriage requires a man and a woman, and we ask why,
that indicates that you need to post a little bit more.

So I will ask the obvious question: *Why* do you say that marriage
requires a man and a woman.

>Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

Good for you. Evidently, there's also nothing we can post that will
get you to post anything more than declarations and ad hominem
attacks.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:20:55 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> And you are welcome to try to change them so you can marry sheep.
>
>If they can be changed to permit same-sex marriage they can be changed to
>permit human-animal marriage.

Of course, the difference is that humans can clearly indicate that
they understand marriage, and animals can't. You have a slight
problem there.

>> Of course, that would require a complete change of the laws on consent
>> and contracts.
>
>Why?

Because contract law depends on both parties being competent to
understand the implications of the agreement. This is why we don;t
allow 12 year olds to lease Porches, or cats to inherit estates. The
are not able to legally perform those actions. In both cases, a
guardian or executor handles the affairs. Were I to leave my vast
fortune (snerk) to my cat (assuming I had one) the court would appoint
a guardian to oversee the trust.

This is the reason why, when I was 17 and wanted to enlist, my
parents, as my guardians, had to sign a form giving me their
permission. Had I waited 7 months, I would have been legally able to
do it myself.

Now, marriage requires that *both parties* express competent consent.
That is, they both have to understand what marriage is, what it
requires, and the depth of commitment it calls for. They have to be
able to make it known, to a judge if necessary, that they do
understand this. For most of us, it's simply a matter of signing the
marriage certificate.

There have been numerous cases where developmentally disabled people
have sued fir, and won, the right to marry. Same for prisoners, the
terminally ill, and the like. All were able to show the ability to
understand what marriage is. So unless you want to marry Olga the
amazing Talking Genius Sheep, that animal is not going to pass the
legal hurdle.

The Sam-sex marriages aren't even talking about that. We are
discussing people who are adults, and are capable of understanding and
consenting to the obligations of civil marriage.

>> LOL! You are a bloody lousy teacher, partner. Teachers explain
>> things, you just repeat the same thing over and over.
>
>I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable to
>understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning deficiency?

Ad hominem attack noted.

>> Not according to the courts.
>>
>It's not up to the courts.

Actually, it is. The courts interpret the law. Article III, Section
2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. I can give you
piles of cases that directly counter your position.. starting with
Marbury v Madison and going up to the recent Supreme Court decision on
Sodomy laws.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote:
>
>> LOL! You are a bloody lousy teacher, partner. Teachers explain
>> things, you just repeat the same thing over and over.
>
>I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable to
>understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning deficiency?

Unwillingness to accept your premises and conclusions doesn't
necessarily mean we don't understand your arguments and explanations.

>> Not according to the courts.
>
>It's not up to the courts.

Sooner or later, it will be, just as the controversy over interracial
marriages had to be settled by the US Supreme Court in Loving v.
Virginia, 1967. That's a much closer analogy to the issue of same-sex
marriage than the general issue of racial equal rights or interspecies
marriage, although you may well consider people of other races to
belong to some different, perhaps subhuman species.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Larry Kessler" > wrote:
>
>> Don't confuse him with the facts. It just makes him mad, but it
>> doesn't make him any more informed.
>
>Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
>argument.

Only if you dismiss everything said by your opponents in this debate
as nonfactual.

>Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post
t>:

>I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable
>to understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning
>deficiency?

That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who
doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and
might be learning-disabled.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> You haven't used a single fact.
>

I posted the definition of marriage. What other pertinent facts are there?


>
> Good for you. Evidently, there's also nothing we can post that will
> get you to post anything more than declarations and ad hominem
> attacks.
>

If you know what an ad hominem attack is you know I haven't posted one.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course, the difference is that humans can clearly indicate that
> they understand marriage, and animals can't. You have a slight
> problem there.
>

Actually, if all humans clearly understood marriage, there'd be no call for
same-sex marriage!


>
> Because contract law depends on both parties being competent to
> understand the implications of the agreement.
>

But we're talking about arbitrarily redefining marriage. Human-animal
marriage wouldn't require the animal to understand the concept of marriage.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unwillingness to accept your premises and conclusions doesn't
> necessarily mean we don't understand your arguments and explanations.
>

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>
> You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post
> t>:
>
> >I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable
> >to understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning
> >deficiency?
>

Poor judgment on your part.


>
> That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who
> doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and
> might be learning-disabled.
>

Marriage is a pretty simple concept. There's obviously something wrong with
those that are unable to understand it.

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Larry Kessler" > wrote:
>
>> Unwillingness to accept your premises and conclusions doesn't
>> necessarily mean we don't understand your arguments and explanations.
>
>Actually, that's exactly what it means.

You certainly are impressed with the infallibility of those arguments.
Tell me, are you perfect in every other way as well?

Has it never crossed your mind that others may not find them as
convincing as you? Isn't that what independent thought is all about?
Listening to arguments from either side of a debate and drawing one's
own conclusions?

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

[Larry Kessler]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post
>> t>:
>>
>> >I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable
>> >to understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning
>> >deficiency?
>
>Poor judgment on your part.

I call 'em like I see 'em. "Poor judgment" is just one bigot's
opinion of that perception.

>> That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who
>> doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and
>> might be learning-disabled.
>
>Marriage is a pretty simple concept.

No, it isn't. If it were, we'd have no need of alt.support.marriage
newsgroup, marriage counselors, divorce lawyers, how-to books, or
myriads of laws and customs relating to marriage. These laws and
customs vary wildly from place to place and from one era to the next,
by the way. Did you know that until the 19th century the Catholic
church used to perform same-sex marriages, and until Utah wanted to
join the USA it was legal there to marry several women? These laws
and customs are not set in stone for all time and handed down on Mt.
Sinai from the hand of the Lord; they are crafted by humans.

>There's obviously something wrong with
>those that are unable to understand it.

Yup, I guess anyone who disagrees with you on this must be stupid,
insane, or evil.

No, the "something wrong" with those of us who don't see it your way
is that we THINK FOR OURSELVES. Obviously, that's not OK with you.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

[Ralph DuBose]

Larry Kessler > wrote in message >...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Larry Kessler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post
> >> t>:
> >>
> >> >I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable
> >> >to understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning
> >> >deficiency?
> >
> >Poor judgment on your part.
>
> I call 'em like I see 'em. "Poor judgment" is just one bigot's
> opinion of that perception.
>
> >> That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who
> >> doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and
> >> might be learning-disabled.
> >
> >Marriage is a pretty simple concept.
>
> No, it isn't. If it were, we'd have no need of alt.support.marriage
> newsgroup, marriage counselors, divorce lawyers, how-to books, or
> myriads of laws and customs relating to marriage. These laws and
> customs vary wildly from place to place and from one era to the next,
> by the way. Did you know that until the 19th century the Catholic
> church used to perform same-sex marriages

What you must be referring to was something more like a sacrament
of friendship to restore a broken relationship. It was something the
church would referee between alienated friends, in my understanding.
Besides, the modern concept of homosexuality was not very widely
held in the 18th, 19th centuries. At any rate, the catholic church has
never given approval to same sex sex, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his
natural law theolgy, on which subsequent teaching have been based, a
long time before that. And it categorically condemned all sexual acts
that "were not open to the transmission of life".
So, whatever the church did, it was not giving anyone permission
for sex apart from unprotected piv.


, and until Utah wanted to
> join the USA it was legal there to marry several women? These laws
> and customs are not set in stone for all time and handed down on Mt.
> Sinai from the hand of the Lord; they are crafted by humans.
>
> >There's obviously something wrong with
> >those that are unable to understand it.
>
> Yup, I guess anyone who disagrees with you on this must be stupid,
> insane, or evil.
>
> No, the "something wrong" with those of us who don't see it your way
> is that we THINK FOR OURSELVES. Obviously, that's not OK with you.

[Larry Kessler]

(Ralph DuBose) wrote:

>Larry Kessler > wrote:

>> Did you know that until the 19th century the Catholic
>> church used to perform same-sex marriages
>
>What you must be referring to was something more like a sacrament
>of friendship to restore a broken relationship. It was something the
>church would referee between alienated friends, in my understanding.

Thank you for this information. Being Jewish, and already married
since 1980, I didn't know that.

>> >There's obviously something wrong with
>> >those that are unable to understand it.
>>
>> Yup, I guess anyone who disagrees with you on this must be stupid,
>> insane, or evil.
>>
>> No, the "something wrong" with those of us who don't see it your way
>> is that we THINK FOR OURSELVES. Obviously, that's not OK with you.

I notice you didn't address any of this.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

[~Nins~]

Ralph DuBose wrote:
|| What you must be referring to was something more like a sacrament
|| of friendship to restore a broken relationship. It was something the
|| church would referee between alienated friends, in my understanding.

I don't recall there ever having been such a sacrament. I don't doubt the
Church might have mediated in friendships on an informal level, but in no
way would such condone same-sex acts. "Homosexual persons are called to
chastity.........CCC2359". There are 7 sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation or
Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and
Matrimony. Sacrament is formal, a mediation is informal, not a sacrament.

The other poster, the only thing I've run across on the net about same-sex
marriages prior to the 19th century was a generalized one not specific to
the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, I've not seen anything that
references the Church as having ever performed such a marriage.

St. Thomas you mentioned, were you referrring to Summa Theologica?
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:23:14 GMT, "~Nins~" > wrote:

> There are 7 sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation or
>Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and
>Matrimony.

You left out pedophilia.