Re: Sometimes stupid loses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Apr 21, 2011.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:

    >>
    >> It's not going anywhere, Tony. Even Obama is against it. On this issue he's
    >> throwing his leftist base under the bus.

    >
    >Do you have any indication whether he himself is actually against it
    >or is he against it
    >because being for it will lose votes or support for the government.
    >I/we have the same problem in the UK that is not knowing a politicians
    >personal POV
    >from that or the governments POV.
    >The we need to work out whether or not the individuals POV is
    >important and relevant.
    >

    Other than the fact that the President has the bully pulpit, his or
    her views have little to do with any possible change in the marriage
    laws. I don't see it as a federal issue anyway.

    As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    citizens.

    I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
    It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
    marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
    laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
    an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
    to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not going anywhere, Tony. Even Obama is against it. On this issue
    >>>> he's
    >>>> throwing his leftist base under the bus.
    >>>
    >>>Do you have any indication whether he himself is actually against it
    >>>or is he against it
    >>>because being for it will lose votes or support for the government.
    >>>I/we have the same problem in the UK that is not knowing a politicians
    >>>personal POV
    >>>from that or the governments POV.
    >>>The we need to work out whether or not the individuals POV is
    >>>important and relevant.
    >>>

    >> Other than the fact that the President has the bully pulpit, his or

    >
    >That reminds me of "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the
    >play?"
    >
    >> her views have little to do with any possible change in the marriage
    >> laws. I don't see it as a federal issue anyway.

    >
    >You might want to take a peek at the Federal income tax code.
    >

    The impetus to change the law is not, in my opinion, a federal issue.
    I think any changes will come state-by-state. I don't see how federal
    tax laws will impact future decisions on this issue. Sure, changes
    would affect tax revenue, but tax laws are easier to change than your
    shirt.

    Speaking of tax revenue, some state is going to recognize that
    increasing the number of people eligible to marry will increase state
    revenue. Florida marriage licenses are now $93.50, but the
    legislature has been bumping up the cost of all permits and licenses.
    Florida has a non-required "Covenant" marriage agreement, but they
    could always add that as a strict requirement and charge extra for the
    course.

    >> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    >> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    >> citizens.

    >
    >What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    >firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.


    I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
    a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
    performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
    it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.

    >Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in every
    >other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know where
    >you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.


    I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
    be passed.

    >The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
    >
    >>
    >> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
    >> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
    >> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
    >> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
    >> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
    >> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.

    >
    >Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed such
    >a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
    >recognizing same-sex marriage.


    Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
    any *future* laws passed by any state.

    "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
    defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
    "marriage" must mean is defended.

    Obama has already declared that his administration will no longer
    defend the DOMA in court. Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
    legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
    defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
    on the wall.

    What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
    expenses of defending DOMA. We have serious budgetary problems, but
    the GOP wants to divert money to defend a law that a significant
    number of Americans oppose. Whether support for same-sex marriage
    recognition is at 40% or 44% or whatever, the number is significant.

    It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
    because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
    something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
    leads to a change in job status.

    While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
    support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
    word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
    should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
    to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.

    >Good grief, Tony. You spend all that time researching political candidates
    >and you don't know what laws they've passed once they're in office?!


    I don't think this is an issue of concern. My knowledge of what's
    going on is affected by neither blinders nor lack of keeping up.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...

    >
    >>
    >>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    >>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    >>>> citizens.
    >>>
    >>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    >>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.

    >>
    >> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
    >> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
    >> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    >> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
    >> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.

    >
    >If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >understatement.
    >
    >And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
    >licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
    >*only* for the benefit of a single group?


    Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.

    >>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in every
    >>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
    >>>where
    >>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.

    >>
    >> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
    >> be passed.

    >
    >No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.


    It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
    unable to under current law. This is discrimination rendering them
    unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    suffrage amendments were.

    >>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
    >>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
    >>>> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
    >>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
    >>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
    >>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
    >>>
    >>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
    >>>such
    >>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
    >>>recognizing same-sex marriage.

    >>
    >> Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
    >> any *future* laws passed by any state.

    >
    >I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."
    >
    >>
    >> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
    >> defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
    >> "marriage" must mean is defended.

    >
    >That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
    >changed to something quite different.


    Like they changed the meaning of "voter", under the law, from a white
    man who votes to a man or woman who votes.

    Likewise we will change the meaning of "marriage", under the law, from
    a man and woman who are married to two adults who are married.

    >> Obama has already declared that his administration will no longer
    >> defend the DOMA in court.

    >
    >Not surprising, is it? Obama trying to have it both ways again. He has said
    >he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but throws a soggy
    >donut to his wacky liberal base by assuring them he won't actually enforce
    >the law as he is supposed to do.
    >
    >We already know that he believes in being extremely selective in how he
    >defends the law of the land. Obviously Eric Holder, his chief law
    >enforcement guy, knows he has Obama behind him when he refuses to address
    >the matter of New Black Panther Party thugs intimidating white voters at the
    >polling station. Holder even directs his Civil Rights Division people to
    >IGNORE the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's lawful subpoenas, and refuses to
    >cooperate with the Civil Rights Commission as the law requires him to do.
    >And gets away with it, in this administration. Protection from voter
    >intimidation is only for minorities. Not for white people. That is Holder's
    >position, and it's fine with Obama.


    The criminal investigation was dropped while the Bush administration
    had left office. All that was done after was to narrow the charges.

    >> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
    >> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
    >> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
    >> on the wall.

    >
    >Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.
    >
    >>
    >> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
    >> expenses of defending DOMA.

    >
    >Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?


    So does he want to cut government expenses or just shuffle them
    around?

    I suspect the half-million was designed to impress repub constituents
    who don't have a good idea of what the legal fees would actually be.

    >>> We have serious budgetary problems, but
    >>> the GOP wants to divert money to defend a law that a significant

    >> number of Americans oppose. Whether support for same-sex marriage
    >> recognition is at 40% or 44% or whatever, the number is significant.

    >
    >But still a minority. The majority agrees with Boehner, and by a comfortable
    >margin.


    Well, that just makes it fine and dandy to continue the
    discrimination, now doesn't it?

    What it comes down to is whether the law is constitutional.

    >> It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
    >> because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
    >> something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
    >> leads to a change in job status.
    >>
    >> While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
    >> support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
    >> word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
    >> should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
    >> to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.

    >
    >It really doesn't occur to you that in those two paragraphs you're arguing
    >against yourself? First you claim DOMA is "unpopular," then you admit a
    >majority support it. I guess this is leftist-"liberal" logic at its best.


    It is increasingly unpopular. It may have a slim majority of support
    now (that figure would be within the margin of error for the latest
    polls) but that has been changing. Saying that how things will be will
    be different from how things are is not a contradiction. Despite your
    insistence to the contrary, things can and do change over time.
    John A., Apr 22, 2011
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...

    >
    >>
    >>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    >>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    >>>> citizens.
    >>>
    >>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    >>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.

    >>
    >> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
    >> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
    >> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    >> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
    >> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.

    >
    >If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >understatement.


    I think anyone reading it that followed the train of thought didn't
    have much of problem.

    >
    >And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
    >licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
    >*only* for the benefit of a single group?


    Radical? I think not. Standard and ordinary.

    Your current marriage license is recognized in any state of the Union.
    Married people are a group. The default is to recognize a license.
    In states where a same-sex marriage licensed in another state is not
    recognized, it is by a law that was drafted specifically to exclude
    same-sex marriage.

    All we need is a federal law requiring all states to accept as valid
    any marriage license issued in another state. Article 6 of the
    Constitution would make this law trump any state law.

    Your driver's license is recognized in any state in the Union.
    Driver's are a group, are they not?

    Some states grant reciprocity to holders of Concealed Carry to holders
    of licenses in other states, but the person with a Concealed Carry
    permit issued by Nevada permit is licensed by reciprocity by Arizona,
    but Arizona gun laws are in effect for that person when he is in
    Arizona.

    Certain trade licenses are recognized by states other than the state
    in which it was granted, but the tradesman is bound by the rules of
    the state in which he works. In some cases, you can work as - say - a
    licensed plumber in a state that is not the state where you were
    licensed as a plumber, but you cannot be the contractor for a plumbing
    job.

    A private pilot's license issued in any state is recognized all 50
    states.

    You could have figured all this out yourself.

    >>
    >>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in every
    >>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
    >>>where
    >>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.

    >>
    >> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
    >> be passed.

    >
    >No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.


    Right. That's what they said about the Voting Rights Act of 1956.

    >
    >>
    >>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
    >>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
    >>>> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
    >>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
    >>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
    >>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
    >>>
    >>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
    >>>such
    >>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
    >>>recognizing same-sex marriage.

    >>
    >> Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
    >> any *future* laws passed by any state.

    >
    >I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."


    No, it's a case of you reading to disagree and not reading to
    understand.
    >>
    >> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
    >> defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
    >> "marriage" must mean is defended.

    >
    >That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
    >changed to something quite different.


    That is only your opinion. Others may share your opinion, but many do
    not. You know what they say about opinions.

    The proper title should be "Defense of How Some Of Us Define
    Marriage".

    >> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
    >> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
    >> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
    >> on the wall.

    >
    >Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.


    Nothing has ever stopped a party in power from finding a way to fund
    what they want if they think they can get away with it.

    >>
    >> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
    >> expenses of defending DOMA.

    >
    >Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?


    It hasn't changed. If Boehner thinks the legal battle is a lost
    cause, he wants someone else to take the blame. He wants to be able
    to say "The Republicans did what the could, but the DoJ blew it".
    Having the DoJ take up the battle doesn't reduce the expenditure; it
    just sources the expenditure differently.


    >> It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
    >> because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
    >> something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
    >> leads to a change in job status.
    >>
    >> While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
    >> support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
    >> word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
    >> should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
    >> to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.

    >
    >It really doesn't occur to you that in those two paragraphs you're arguing
    >against yourself? First you claim DOMA is "unpopular," then you admit a
    >majority support it. I guess this is leftist-"liberal" logic at its best.
    >

    No conflict there at all. Popularity is not something that is defined
    by a support of a majority or backing by a minority. "Unpopular", in
    this context, means not favored by a significant number of people.

    You must be on the ropes. You're beginning to sound like Bill Graham.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 22, 2011
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:53:34 -0400, John A. <>
    wrote:

    >
    >>> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
    >>> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
    >>> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
    >>> on the wall.

    >>
    >>Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
    >>> expenses of defending DOMA.

    >>
    >>Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?

    >
    >So does he want to cut government expenses or just shuffle them
    >around?
    >
    >I suspect the half-million was designed to impress repub constituents
    >who don't have a good idea of what the legal fees would actually be.


    $500,000 will fund one lawyer for about six months in a case like
    this. He's waving the white flag. (Maybe a pink one) Boehmer's
    lawyer gets $550 a billable hour, and the direct primary attorney
    expense is a small part of the total legal expenses.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 22, 2011
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 27, 1:49 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    > "John A." <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    > >>> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > >>>>news:...

    >
    > >>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    > >>>>> legislation.  The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    > >>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    > >>>>> citizens.

    >
    > >>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    > >>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.

    >
    > >>> I wasn't clear.  I should have added "need" in there.  There might be
    > >>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
    > >>> performed in other states.  It could be marriage-specific and not
    > >>> include all the other things we are licensed for.  "Umbrella" in that
    > >>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.

    >
    > >>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    > >>understatement.

    >
    > >>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
    > >>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
    > >>*only* for the benefit of a single group?

    >
    > > Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    > > recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    > > and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.

    >
    > No one is being discriminated against here.


    Some have been and some still are, sometimes discrimination is the
    right thing
    to do other times it isn't.


    > >>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
    > >>>>every
    > >>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
    > >>>>where
    > >>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise..

    >
    > >>> I didn't.  I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
    > >>> be passed.

    >
    > >>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.

    >
    > > It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
    > > unable to under current law.

    >
    > As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
    > same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man and
    > a kitty/TV set/other man.


    So prove it.
    Prove the first marriage or the second and prove to me what marriage
    was originally.
    Not what is was yesterday or that the bride has to be a virgin, or has
    to wear white,
    or that it has to be in church or it has to be witnessed.
    No one is realyl sure when or why the first marriages took place or
    who they were between or
    what the purpose of maiiage was althouhg most believ it was a simple
    transaction of ownership
    from one family to another in exchange or the joining of land and
    property.

    Here's a warning for you, if you do find the very first marriage it
    it's written the the original
    English/America it is most likely a faked document as marriages
    existed 1000s of year before
    English or American was spoken.


    > > This is discrimination rendering them
    > > unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    > > suffrage amendments were.

    >
    > What you want is not  equal rights under the law, but a change in the
    > meaning of the word "marriage."


    We don;t know what the original meaning of marriage was.
    We know what marriages are in other older cultures and how it has
    changed with time.
    Once marraige could only occur between peolpe of teh same race /
    religion.
    Marriage has changed from country to country, so how can you tell what
    it was 10,000 years ago.

    What was the native American views on marriage and how did that work,
    did the brides have to be virgins and marry in white.
    Marriages have been changed by the religious beliefs of those in power
    throughout the ages.

    >
    > >>>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.

    >
    > >>>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
    > >>>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
    > >>>>> marriage want.  The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
    > >>>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound.  That is more likely to be
    > >>>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
    > >>>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.

    >
    > >>>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
    > >>>>such
    > >>>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
    > >>>>recognizing same-sex marriage.

    >
    > >>> Read my entire paragraph.  It deals only with the constitutionalityof
    > >>> any *future* laws passed by any state.

    >
    > >>I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."

    >
    > >>> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title.  Marriage isn't being
    > >>> defended.  Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
    > >>> "marriage" must mean is defended.

    >
    > >>That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
    > >>changed to something quite different.

    >
    > > Like they changed the meaning of "voter", under the law, from a white
    > > man who votes to a man or woman who votes.

    >
    > A voter is one who has the right to vote. That is what it has always meant,
    > and there has been no change in the meaning of "voter."


    yes there has, I'm not sure how it worked in the USA but in the UK
    not every man was allowed to vote you have to be of a certain age
    bracket,
    and then eant a certain salery or own your own home.
    As time went on the discrimination of only allowing certain men to
    vote was changed
    so that any lame within the age bracket could vote.
    Then women started to get the vote an then only some of them not all
    as it was originally with men.
    Now men and women can vote equally.
    But there are those that still can;t call themselves voters, such as
    those in prisons or held
    at her majestys pleasure or whatever you choose to call it (banged
    up).
    Apparently there are moves to change these voting rights so those in
    prison can vote.
    So what it means to be a voter has changed .


    > What it comes down to is whether you or any activist group can change the
    > meaning of a word from what it has always meant to something quite
    > different.


    But you don't know what marriage was 10,000+ years ago.

    All you can do is guess.

    I suppose you know why the married couple kiss don;t you,
    I suppose you know why the bride wears a veil and why she carried
    flowers...
    But all these things have been taken from various ceremonies of the
    last few thousand years.

    But then I'm guessing you don't even know why people get married to
    you.

    I'm guessing it because you believe you can only ever love one person
    and until you marry them you can't prove you love them is that it ?
    Whisky-dave, Apr 27, 2011
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    >>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    >>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    >>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.
    >>>>
    >>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
    >>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
    >>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    >>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
    >>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>
    >>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>understatement.
    >>>
    >>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
    >>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
    >>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?

    >>
    >> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    >> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.

    >
    >No one is being discriminated against here.


    Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a
    church believes that two men or two women should be able to marry,
    what right does anyone else have to say they can't? They're consenting
    adults. If someone outside their church doesn't like it, too bad.

    >>>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
    >>>>>every
    >>>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
    >>>>>where
    >>>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.
    >>>>
    >>>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
    >>>> be passed.
    >>>
    >>>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.

    >>
    >> It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
    >> unable to under current law.

    >
    >As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
    >same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man and
    >a kitty/TV set/other man.


    The old slippery slope straw man.

    Again, we're talking about consenting adult *humans* here.

    When and if sentient non-humans come around we'll talk about going
    beyond that, but not before. Meanwhile minors & sub-sentients can't
    give consent.

    >> This is discrimination rendering them
    >> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    >> suffrage amendments were.

    >
    >What you want is not equal rights under the law, but a change in the
    >meaning of the word "marriage."


    In order to establish more equal rights under the law. It wouldn't be
    the first word redefined to that purpose.

    In fact, I'd say it wouldn't be a redefinition of the word at all, but
    rather a mere expansion of its application.

    >>>>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
    >>>>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
    >>>>>> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
    >>>>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
    >>>>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
    >>>>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
    >>>>>such
    >>>>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
    >>>>>recognizing same-sex marriage.
    >>>>
    >>>> Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
    >>>> any *future* laws passed by any state.
    >>>
    >>>I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
    >>>> defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
    >>>> "marriage" must mean is defended.
    >>>
    >>>That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
    >>>changed to something quite different.

    >>
    >> Like they changed the meaning of "voter", under the law, from a white
    >> man who votes to a man or woman who votes.

    >
    >A voter is one who has the right to vote. That is what it has always meant,
    >and there has been no change in the meaning of "voter."


    And marriage is when two people marry. Maybe a lot of people only
    think of male-female pairs when they think of marriage, but the word
    goes beyond that, even to pairings of other objects. Again, this is
    just an expansion of application, not a change of meaning.

    >> Likewise we will change the meaning of "marriage", under the law, from
    >> a man and woman who are married to two adults who are married.
    >>
    >>>> Obama has already declared that his administration will no longer
    >>>> defend the DOMA in court.
    >>>
    >>>Not surprising, is it? Obama trying to have it both ways again. He has
    >>>said
    >>>he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but throws a soggy
    >>>donut to his wacky liberal base by assuring them he won't actually enforce
    >>>the law as he is supposed to do.
    >>>
    >>>We already know that he believes in being extremely selective in how he
    >>>defends the law of the land. Obviously Eric Holder, his chief law
    >>>enforcement guy, knows he has Obama behind him when he refuses to address
    >>>the matter of New Black Panther Party thugs intimidating white voters at
    >>>the
    >>>polling station. Holder even directs his Civil Rights Division people to
    >>>IGNORE the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's lawful subpoenas, and refuses to
    >>>cooperate with the Civil Rights Commission as the law requires him to do.
    >>>And gets away with it, in this administration. Protection from voter
    >>>intimidation is only for minorities. Not for white people. That is
    >>>Holder's
    >>>position, and it's fine with Obama.

    >>
    >> The criminal investigation was dropped while the Bush administration
    >> had left office. All that was done after was to narrow the charges.
    >>
    >>>> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
    >>>> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
    >>>> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
    >>>> on the wall.
    >>>
    >>>Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
    >>>> expenses of defending DOMA.
    >>>
    >>>Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?

    >>
    >> So does he want to cut government expenses or just shuffle them
    >> around?
    >>
    >> I suspect the half-million was designed to impress repub constituents
    >> who don't have a good idea of what the legal fees would actually be.
    >>
    >>>>> We have serious budgetary problems, but
    >>>>> the GOP wants to divert money to defend a law that a significant
    >>>> number of Americans oppose. Whether support for same-sex marriage
    >>>> recognition is at 40% or 44% or whatever, the number is significant.
    >>>
    >>>But still a minority. The majority agrees with Boehner, and by a
    >>>comfortable
    >>>margin.

    >>
    >> Well, that just makes it fine and dandy to continue the
    >> discrimination, now doesn't it?

    >
    >There is no discrimination. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same
    >rights under the law.


    No, they don't. Two homosexuals who want to marry can't do so in many
    states, and when they can in some states it's not recognized in
    others.

    It's similar to what the situation was with interracial marriages, not
    so long ago.

    >> What it comes down to is whether the law is constitutional.

    >
    >What it comes down to is whether you or any activist group can change the
    >meaning of a word from what it has always meant to something quite
    >different.
    >
    >This has been explained to you many times now.


    Again, there is no change in meaning, only an expansion of
    application.

    >>>> It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
    >>>> because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
    >>>> something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
    >>>> leads to a change in job status.
    >>>>
    >>>> While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
    >>>> support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
    >>>> word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
    >>>> should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
    >>>> to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.
    >>>
    >>>It really doesn't occur to you that in those two paragraphs you're arguing
    >>>against yourself? First you claim DOMA is "unpopular," then you admit a
    >>>majority support it. I guess this is leftist-"liberal" logic at its best.

    >>
    >> It is increasingly unpopular. It may have a slim majority of support
    >> now (that figure would be within the margin of error for the latest
    >> polls) but that has been changing. Saying that how things will be will
    >> be different from how things are is not a contradiction. Despite your
    >> insistence to the contrary, things can and do change over time.

    >
    >Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages were
    >cantaloupes.


    The numbers don't lie.
    John A., Apr 27, 2011
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    >>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    >>>>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    >>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding
    >>>>>>>mine.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
    >>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
    >>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    >>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
    >>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>>understatement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
    >>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
    >>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>
    >>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    >>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>
    >>>No one is being discriminated against here.

    >>
    >> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a

    >
    >It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything else.
    >There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious connection
    >whatever.


    And those laws violate freedom of religion.

    >> church believes that two men or two women should be able to marry,
    >> what right does anyone else have to say they can't? They're consenting
    >> adults. If someone outside their church doesn't like it, too bad.

    >
    >They still can't sell cabbages as cantaloupes.


    No, but they can perform marriages. Do try to stay on topic.

    >>>>>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
    >>>>>>>every
    >>>>>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
    >>>>>>>where
    >>>>>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
    >>>>>> be passed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
    >>>> unable to under current law.
    >>>
    >>>As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
    >>>same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man
    >>>and
    >>>a kitty/TV set/other man.

    >>
    >> The old slippery slope straw man.
    >>
    >> Again, we're talking about consenting adult *humans* here.

    >
    >But why? If you can change the meaning of a word to include same sex where
    >it didn't mean that before, then you're throwing out the old familiar
    >meaning and you can have the word mean whatever you want -- including man
    >and his favorite electronic device, I suppose.


    You can keep setting up that same old straw man if you wish, but
    you're only making yourself look ridiculous.

    >> When and if sentient non-humans come around we'll talk about going
    >> beyond that, but not before. Meanwhile minors & sub-sentients can't
    >> give consent.

    >
    >Why not, if you're throwing out the old meaning?


    Expanding it. A man and woman who get married are still married. It's
    just that more people will be able to be married.

    >>>> This is discrimination rendering them
    >>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    >>>> suffrage amendments were.
    >>>
    >>>What you want is not equal rights under the law, but a change in the
    >>>meaning of the word "marriage."

    >>
    >> In order to establish more equal rights under the law. It wouldn't be
    >> the first word redefined to that purpose.
    >>
    >> In fact, I'd say it wouldn't be a redefinition of the word at all, but
    >> rather a mere expansion of its application.

    >
    >That's like "expanding" the meaning of "submarine" to include "automobiles."


    Not at all. When submarines were invented the meaning of "ocean-going
    vessel" was expanded to include them. It happens. Deal with it.
    John A., Apr 27, 2011
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
    >>>>>>>>>> forces
    >>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    >>>>>>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    >>>>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding
    >>>>>>>>>mine.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might
    >>>>>>>> be
    >>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
    >>>>>>>> marriages
    >>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    >>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in
    >>>>>>>> that
    >>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>>>>understatement.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter
    >>>>>>>of
    >>>>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license
    >>>>>>>and
    >>>>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    >>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>No one is being discriminated against here.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a
    >>>
    >>>It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything else.
    >>>There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious connection
    >>>whatever.

    >>
    >> And those laws violate freedom of religion.

    >
    >How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom of
    >religion"?


    If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
    recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
    that freedom.

    A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
    general, to infringe on religious freedoms.

    >>>> church believes that two men or two women should be able to marry,
    >>>> what right does anyone else have to say they can't? They're consenting
    >>>> adults. If someone outside their church doesn't like it, too bad.
    >>>
    >>>They still can't sell cabbages as cantaloupes.

    >>
    >> No, but they can perform marriages. Do try to stay on topic.

    >
    >It is on topic. If you can call something that isn't marriage "marriage,"
    >you can call a cabbage a "cantaloupe."
    >
    >Words mean things.


    You've said that. Meanings change, or the application of words expand.

    I say that the "man & woman" part of your definition of "marriage"
    only reflects the application of the word in the past, not its actual
    meaning.

    >>>>>>>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
    >>>>>>>>>every
    >>>>>>>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't
    >>>>>>>>>know
    >>>>>>>>>where
    >>>>>>>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says
    >>>>>>>>>otherwise.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what
    >>>>>>>> might
    >>>>>>>> be passed.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
    >>>>>> unable to under current law.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
    >>>>>same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man
    >>>>>and
    >>>>>a kitty/TV set/other man.
    >>>>
    >>>> The old slippery slope straw man.
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, we're talking about consenting adult *humans* here.
    >>>
    >>>But why? If you can change the meaning of a word to include same sex where
    >>>it didn't mean that before, then you're throwing out the old familiar
    >>>meaning and you can have the word mean whatever you want -- including man
    >>>and his favorite electronic device, I suppose.

    >>
    >> You can keep setting up that same old straw man if you wish, but
    >> you're only making yourself look ridiculous.
    >>
    >>>> When and if sentient non-humans come around we'll talk about going
    >>>> beyond that, but not before. Meanwhile minors & sub-sentients can't
    >>>> give consent.
    >>>
    >>>Why not, if you're throwing out the old meaning?

    >>
    >> Expanding it. A man and woman who get married are still married. It's
    >> just that more people will be able to be married.

    >
    >That's not "expanding" a word's meaning. That's "throwing out."


    Explain to me exactly how expanding the meaning of "marriage" to
    include married homosexuals will make anything now considered to be
    marriage no longer marriage.

    >>>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
    >>>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    >>>>>> suffrage amendments were.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>What you want is not equal rights under the law, but a change in the
    >>>>>meaning of the word "marriage."
    >>>>
    >>>> In order to establish more equal rights under the law. It wouldn't be
    >>>> the first word redefined to that purpose.
    >>>>
    >>>> In fact, I'd say it wouldn't be a redefinition of the word at all, but
    >>>> rather a mere expansion of its application.
    >>>
    >>>That's like "expanding" the meaning of "submarine" to include
    >>>"automobiles."

    >>
    >> Not at all. When submarines were invented the meaning of "ocean-going
    >> vessel" was expanded to include them. It happens. Deal with it.

    >
    >I didn't mention "ocean-going vessels."


    No, you didn't. That was me.

    You made a bad analogy (James Bond's Lotus notwithstanding) in which
    the term "submarine" was expanded to include automobiles.

    I offered a better analogy involving submarines that actually
    parallels the expansion of "marriage" to include married gay couples.

    Before submarines came around, an "ocean-going vessel" would pretty
    much be assumed to float on the surface. I wouldn't be surprised to
    find dictionaries from the time including that in the definition. Then
    submarines came and "ocean-going vessel" dropped the
    floating-on-the-surface part of its definition.

    Before gay marriage came around, a "marriage" would pretty much be
    assumed to be between a man and a woman. Not surprisingly, many
    dictionaries from the time include that in the definition. Now gay
    marriage has come and "marriage" will be dropping the man-and-woman
    part of its definition.

    Dictionaries describe the times; they don't define them.

    >The original and still correct meaning of "marriage" isn't going anywhere.
    >You deal with it. I'm quite content already.


    I'm not the one who's going to have to deal with anything, my friend.
    Sorry.
    John A., Apr 27, 2011
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
    >>>>>>>>>>>> forces
    >>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for
    >>>>>>>>>>>> their
    >>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
    >>>>>>>>>>>concealed
    >>>>>>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding
    >>>>>>>>>>>mine.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might
    >>>>>>>>>> be
    >>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
    >>>>>>>>>> marriages
    >>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    >>>>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in
    >>>>>>>>>> that
    >>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>>>>>>understatement.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter
    >>>>>>>>>of
    >>>>>>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license
    >>>>>>>>>and
    >>>>>>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >>>>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    >>>>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>No one is being discriminated against here.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a
    >>>>>
    >>>>>It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything else.
    >>>>>There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious
    >>>>>connection
    >>>>>whatever.
    >>>>
    >>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
    >>>
    >>>How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom of
    >>>religion"?

    >>
    >> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
    >> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
    >> that freedom.

    >
    >Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding bigamy
    >infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many wives as they
    >wanted, and I would have to agree with you. Similarly, I suppose Muslims'
    >mutliple marriages would be forbidden in this country. I am not aware that
    >many people want the right to bigamy allowed *and recognized* in this
    >country, however.


    I think that bigamy (and polyandry too, if that's the right term)
    should be legal too. Not my style but I don't begrudge anyone it works
    for so long as everyone in it likes it. (The plural of 'spouse' is
    'spice', they say.) The whole one-man-one-woman thing is, I think, an
    artifact of the early Christian dominance in this country. When
    religion in a country is a bit homogenous people tend to be a bit
    blind as to what is universal and what is particular to their own
    religion. As people become more aware of the diversity that exists,
    corrections can be and are made.

    >Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right to create
    >laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men and women, on
    >the basis that the people have some right to establish reasonable and
    >acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In most localities you
    >cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia in public, relieve yourself
    >on a public street, etc., even if you follow some religion that regards such
    >actions as proper and desirable.


    Such actions have an effect on the general public so are reasonable to
    regulate.

    >> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
    >> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.

    >
    >There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community makes rules
    >about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but the community is not
    >obliged to change its standards to make you happy. This is especially true
    >when it is *your* intention to infringe on *their* reasonable standards of
    >behavior, by forcing them to accept a change that they don't want to accept.


    When enough of the community is aware of the inequities of an existing
    law it can change.

    >This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom." Those are
    >just red herrings, and silly ones at that.


    Not at all. What's silly is your insistence that things don't change,
    and that people who don't currently enjoy the rights that others do
    shouldn't. In both cases, they do.
    John A., Apr 27, 2011
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:56:02 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
    wrote:

    >Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> state legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> law that forces
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
    >>>>>>>>>>>> concealed
    >>>>>>>>>>>> firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
    >>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding mine.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
    >>>>>>>>>>> might be
    >>>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
    >>>>>>>>>>> marriages
    >>>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific
    >>>>>>>>>>> and not include all the other things we are licensed for.
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Umbrella" in that
    >>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>>>>>>> understatement.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
    >>>>>>>>>> matter of
    >>>>>>>>>> licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of
    >>>>>>>>>> license and
    >>>>>>>>>> *only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based
    >>>>>>>>> on: recognition that the group was discriminated against by
    >>>>>>>>> previous law and that discrimination on those grounds are
    >>>>>>>>> wrong.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue.
    >>>>>>> If a
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything
    >>>>>> else. There are state laws concerning marriage that have no
    >>>>>> religious connection
    >>>>>> whatever.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
    >>>>
    >>>> How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom
    >>>> of religion"?
    >>>
    >>> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
    >>> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
    >>> that freedom.

    >>
    >> Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding
    >> bigamy infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many
    >> wives as they wanted, and I would have to agree with you. Similarly,
    >> I suppose Muslims' mutliple marriages would be forbidden in this
    >> country. I am not aware that many people want the right to bigamy
    >> allowed *and recognized* in this country, however.
    >>
    >> Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right to
    >> create laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men
    >> and women, on the basis that the people have some right to establish
    >> reasonable and acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In
    >> most localities you cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia
    >> in public, relieve yourself on a public street, etc., even if you
    >> follow some religion that regards such actions as proper and
    >> desirable.
    >>>
    >>> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
    >>> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.

    >>
    >> There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community makes
    >> rules about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but the
    >> community is not obliged to change its standards to make you happy.
    >> This is especially true when it is *your* intention to infringe on
    >> *their* reasonable standards of behavior, by forcing them to accept a
    >> change that they don't want to accept.
    >> This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom."
    >> Those are just red herrings, and silly ones at that.

    >
    >Yes. Even though I intentionally break unenforceable laws, I would not drive
    >around with a couple of hundred pounds of dynamite in the trunk of my car.
    >Some laws are of an "advisory" nature rather than ones expected to be police
    >enforced.


    Not driving around with a couple hundred pounds of dynamite in your
    trunk: it's not just a good idea - it's the law. :)
    John A., Apr 27, 2011
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:25:21 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>concealed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>surrounding
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>mine.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
    >>>>>>>>>>>> might
    >>>>>>>>>>>> be
    >>>>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
    >>>>>>>>>>>> marriages
    >>>>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and
    >>>>>>>>>>>> not
    >>>>>>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in
    >>>>>>>>>>>> that
    >>>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>>>>>>>>understatement.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>matter
    >>>>>>>>>>>of
    >>>>>>>>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of
    >>>>>>>>>>>license
    >>>>>>>>>>>and
    >>>>>>>>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >>>>>>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous
    >>>>>>>>>> law
    >>>>>>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>No one is being discriminated against here.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If
    >>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything
    >>>>>>>else.
    >>>>>>>There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious
    >>>>>>>connection
    >>>>>>>whatever.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom of
    >>>>>religion"?
    >>>>
    >>>> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
    >>>> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
    >>>> that freedom.
    >>>
    >>>Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding bigamy
    >>>infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many wives as they
    >>>wanted, and I would have to agree with you. Similarly, I suppose Muslims'
    >>>mutliple marriages would be forbidden in this country. I am not aware that
    >>>many people want the right to bigamy allowed *and recognized* in this
    >>>country, however.

    >>
    >> I think that bigamy (and polyandry too, if that's the right term)
    >> should be legal too. Not my style but I don't begrudge anyone it works
    >> for so long as everyone in it likes it. (The plural of 'spouse' is
    >> 'spice', they say.) The whole one-man-one-woman thing is, I think, an
    >> artifact of the early Christian dominance in this country.

    >
    >I doubt it. Except for those cultures that allow multiple wives, I think the
    >traditional pairing off of one-man-one-woman really has little if anything
    >to do with religion of any flavor. Religions have poked their noses into it
    >and to a large extent expropriated it as far as official endorsement is
    >concerned, but it's of such a practical nature (sharing household workload
    >etc.) I think we'd still have pretty much the same thing if religions didn't
    >exist.
    >
    >> When
    >> religion in a country is a bit homogenous people tend to be a bit
    >> blind as to what is universal and what is particular to their own
    >> religion. As people become more aware of the diversity that exists,
    >> corrections can be and are made.

    >
    >I still think it's traditional (family- and friends-related) behavior that
    >seems pretty much the same with or without religion being in the mix.
    >
    >>
    >>>Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right to
    >>>create
    >>>laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men and women,
    >>>on
    >>>the basis that the people have some right to establish reasonable and
    >>>acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In most localities you
    >>>cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia in public, relieve
    >>>yourself
    >>>on a public street, etc., even if you follow some religion that regards
    >>>such
    >>>actions as proper and desirable.

    >>
    >> Such actions have an effect on the general public so are reasonable to
    >> regulate.

    >
    >Right. But of course in any community there are community values that one is
    >more or less expected to conform to.
    >
    >>
    >>>> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
    >>>> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.
    >>>
    >>>There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community makes rules
    >>>about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but the community is
    >>>not
    >>>obliged to change its standards to make you happy. This is especially true
    >>>when it is *your* intention to infringe on *their* reasonable standards of
    >>>behavior, by forcing them to accept a change that they don't want to
    >>>accept.

    >>
    >> When enough of the community is aware of the inequities of an existing
    >> law it can change.

    >
    >Again, you are hung up on the idea that there is some sort of "inequity"
    >involved here.


    Well, there is. A pair of adults who love each other should be able to
    get married. Under current law not everyone can.

    >>>This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom." Those
    >>>are
    >>>just red herrings, and silly ones at that.

    >>
    >> Not at all. What's silly is your insistence that things don't change,
    >> and that people who don't currently enjoy the rights that others do
    >> shouldn't. In both cases, they do.

    >
    >The rights are the same for all.


    No, they're not. And you seem to be blind to that.
    John A., Apr 28, 2011
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
    >>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
    >>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
    >>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.
    >>>>
    >>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
    >>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
    >>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
    >>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
    >>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>
    >>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>understatement.
    >>>
    >>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
    >>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
    >>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?

    >>
    >> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    >> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.

    >
    >No one is being discriminated against here.


    Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.

    >
    >As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
    >same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man and
    >a kitty/TV set/other man.


    And this one.
    >
    >> This is discrimination rendering them
    >> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    >> suffrage amendments were.

    >
    >What you want is not equal rights under the law


    And this one.

    >This has been explained to you many times now.


    And the nonsense of your positions to you.

    >Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages were
    >cantaloupes.
    >

    And this one.

    Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out by
    the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
    with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
    wrong.

    I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
    about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
    can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
    concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
    gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
    you can convince yourself.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 28, 2011
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:00:28 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >John A. wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:25:21 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through state legislation. The only federal aspect is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an umbrella law that forces
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry concealed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mine.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There might
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognized marriages
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Umbrella" in that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> masterpiece of understatement.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> the matter
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of license
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> *only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were
    >>>>>>>>>>>> based on: recognition that the group was discriminated
    >>>>>>>>>>>> against by previous law
    >>>>>>>>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom
    >>>>>>>>>> issue. If a
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious
    >>>>>>>>> anything else.
    >>>>>>>>> There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious
    >>>>>>>>> connection
    >>>>>>>>> whatever.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate
    >>>>>>> freedom of religion"?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
    >>>>>> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does
    >>>>>> violate that freedom.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding
    >>>>> bigamy infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many
    >>>>> wives as they wanted, and I would have to agree with you.
    >>>>> Similarly, I suppose Muslims' mutliple marriages would be
    >>>>> forbidden in this country. I am not aware that many people want
    >>>>> the right to bigamy allowed *and recognized* in this country,
    >>>>> however.
    >>>>
    >>>> I think that bigamy (and polyandry too, if that's the right term)
    >>>> should be legal too. Not my style but I don't begrudge anyone it
    >>>> works for so long as everyone in it likes it. (The plural of
    >>>> 'spouse' is 'spice', they say.) The whole one-man-one-woman thing
    >>>> is, I think, an artifact of the early Christian dominance in this
    >>>> country.
    >>>
    >>> I doubt it. Except for those cultures that allow multiple wives, I
    >>> think the traditional pairing off of one-man-one-woman really has
    >>> little if anything to do with religion of any flavor. Religions have
    >>> poked their noses into it and to a large extent expropriated it as
    >>> far as official endorsement is concerned, but it's of such a
    >>> practical nature (sharing household workload etc.) I think we'd
    >>> still have pretty much the same thing if religions didn't exist.
    >>>
    >>>> When
    >>>> religion in a country is a bit homogenous people tend to be a bit
    >>>> blind as to what is universal and what is particular to their own
    >>>> religion. As people become more aware of the diversity that exists,
    >>>> corrections can be and are made.
    >>>
    >>> I still think it's traditional (family- and friends-related)
    >>> behavior that seems pretty much the same with or without religion
    >>> being in the mix.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right
    >>>>> to create
    >>>>> laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men and
    >>>>> women, on
    >>>>> the basis that the people have some right to establish reasonable
    >>>>> and acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In most
    >>>>> localities you cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia in
    >>>>> public, relieve yourself
    >>>>> on a public street, etc., even if you follow some religion that
    >>>>> regards such
    >>>>> actions as proper and desirable.
    >>>>
    >>>> Such actions have an effect on the general public so are reasonable
    >>>> to regulate.
    >>>
    >>> Right. But of course in any community there are community values
    >>> that one is more or less expected to conform to.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
    >>>>>> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community
    >>>>> makes rules about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but
    >>>>> the community is not
    >>>>> obliged to change its standards to make you happy. This is
    >>>>> especially true when it is *your* intention to infringe on *their*
    >>>>> reasonable standards of behavior, by forcing them to accept a
    >>>>> change that they don't want to accept.
    >>>>
    >>>> When enough of the community is aware of the inequities of an
    >>>> existing law it can change.
    >>>
    >>> Again, you are hung up on the idea that there is some sort of
    >>> "inequity" involved here.

    >>
    >> Well, there is. A pair of adults who love each other should be able to
    >> get married. Under current law not everyone can.

    >
    >The same laws apply to all. That is as *equal* as you can get.


    No, a law that treats all equally would be as equal as you can get.

    >>>>> This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom."
    >>>>> Those are
    >>>>> just red herrings, and silly ones at that.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not at all. What's silly is your insistence that things don't
    >>>> change, and that people who don't currently enjoy the rights that
    >>>> others do shouldn't. In both cases, they do.
    >>>
    >>> The rights are the same for all.

    >>
    >> No, they're not. And you seem to be blind to that.

    >
    >Yes, they are. And your repeated claim that they are not, which you cannot
    >show after all this yakitayakitayakita, remains just so much hogwash.


    Nope. It is your claim that a law that differentiates by sexual
    orientation constitutes equal rights that is hogwash.
    John A., Apr 28, 2011
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:36:48 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
    >>>>>>>> forces states to recognize the rights that other states provide
    >>>>>>>> for their citizens.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
    >>>>>>> concealed firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
    >>>>>>> surrounding mine.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
    >>>>>> might be a need for some federal law to ensure that states
    >>>>>> recognized marriages performed in other states. It could be
    >>>>>> marriage-specific and not include all the other things we are
    >>>>>> licensed for. "Umbrella" in that it pertains to all states, not
    >>>>>> all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>> understatement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
    >>>>> matter of licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single
    >>>>> type of license and *only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>
    >>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
    >>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>
    >>> No one is being discriminated against here.

    >>
    >> Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for
    >>> the same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman,
    >>> not a man and a kitty/TV set/other man.

    >>
    >> And this one.
    >>>
    >>>> This is discrimination rendering them
    >>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    >>>> suffrage amendments were.
    >>>
    >>> What you want is not equal rights under the law

    >>
    >> And this one.
    >>
    >>> This has been explained to you many times now.

    >>
    >> And the nonsense of your positions to you.
    >>
    >>> Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages
    >>> were cantaloupes.
    >>>

    >> And this one.

    >
    >You have not refuted any of them, and cannot.
    >
    >Tell you what: as soon as you can show where any single one of them is
    >wrong, I'll promptly drop that one. Then you can move on to the next, and so
    >on.
    >
    >The fact that you cannot produce a single logical argument against any of
    >them should tell you something, but apparently it does not. So you remain
    >unhappy. That is neither my fault nor my problem.


    Many of us have produced several logical arguments. You simply refuse
    to admit that sometimes words of necessity do change meanings or scope
    of application.

    At this point I must say that you have not produced a single logical
    argument that you even *believe* that the current (or not-so-current,
    actually) dictionary definition of anything should limit who it can
    ever legally apply to. I think it's fairly obvious that you simply do
    not like gay people, fault them for what they are, and by way of
    punishment don't want them to have the same rights as the rest of us.

    >> Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out by
    >> the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
    >> with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
    >> wrong.

    >
    >"Same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and being nonexistent has
    >no power to "creep me out." It is sort of like "Cocker Spaniel kitten." Now
    >*that* might very well creep me out, if there were such a thing.


    You betray your true position here. You are so repulsed by the
    prospect you are in denial that it can even be a real thing.

    >> I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
    >> about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
    >> can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
    >> concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
    >> gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
    >> you can convince yourself.

    >
    >It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
    >understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not change
    >with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that, you're most
    >of the way home.


    Or you could just stick you fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA!"

    Works just as well.

    >In only five of our states, most of them small liberal states in the
    >northeast, and one city, all combined having only a very small portion of
    >the country's population, and much of that population disagreeing with the
    >change in definition anyway, has the meaning of "marriage" been changed,
    >quite arbitrarily, to mean something different from what it has meant. In
    >the vast majority of the rest of the world the meaning of "marriage" has not
    >changed at all. In our own federal government it has not changed.


    It goes beyond the US.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage

    And the question remains whether restricting marriage to heterosexuals
    is constitutional.

    >The question, then, is, not how can I convince myself of anything, but how
    >can *you* convince yourself that the definition of "marriage" is other than
    >what it is and has always been?


    It's meaning is not changing, actually. Its scope of application is
    changing. The male+female parts of what you see in old dictionaries
    never really spoke to the meaning of the word but rather who was
    generally referred to when the word was used. It's been used in the
    context of inanimate objects, organizations, concepts, etc., so
    expanding its scope merely among humans is really no big leap. If
    there weren't people like you who simply don't like the people it's
    being expanded to refer to there would be barely any notice of it
    other than the occasional kid being puzzled by the entry in an old
    dictionary.
    John A., Apr 28, 2011
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:32:04 -0400, John A. <>
    wrote:

    >>It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
    >>understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not change
    >>with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that, you're most
    >>of the way home.

    >
    >Or you could just stick you fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA!"


    Funny, I thought of him doing the same thing and saying "Woo, woo,
    woo". And that was before I read your post.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 28, 2011
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/29/2011 4:11 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    > This is a racist country
    >>> with a racist government that engages in racist practices and has all
    >>> of my life. They single out special groups and either take away
    >>> priviledges or give extra priviledges to them (you can't give extra
    >>> priviledges to one group without taking them away from some other
    >>> group.) We give special priviledges to Native Americans, Black
    >>> people, heterasexuals, and many other groups. We prosecute crimes
    >>> more heavily against some groups than others. Also, we don't even do
    >>> a good job of it. We frequently leave it up to some clerk to decide
    >>> who gets the priviledge and who doesn't based on appearance alone. It
    >>> is one of the things I hate most about my country.

    >>
    >> There are planes leaving every day, but I doubt you will ever be
    >> satisfied anywhere.
    >>
    >> You might want to try Iraq, now that we have "brought democracy" to
    >> them.
    >> <guffaw!>

    >
    > There is no place that is any better than here, unfortunately. And all
    > the available land already belongs to someone, so there is no way I can
    > start my own country. I was born about 300 years too late for that. But
    > that doesn't stop me from bitching about it. It is possible to change
    > it, you know. Maybe it will become less racist if there are enough
    > people like me yapping about it.


    If you had real courage of your convictions, you would walk in front of
    the local police station waving your gun. When they arrest you, then
    bring your claim that the gun law is unconstitutional as a defense. Do
    it quick, while our Supreme Court is still largely conservative. Better
    yet, carry it unloaded the next time you fly.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 29, 2011
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/29/2011 4:18 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
    >>>>>>>>> forces states to recognize the rights that other states provide
    >>>>>>>>> for their citizens.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
    >>>>>>>> concealed firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
    >>>>>>>> surrounding mine.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
    >>>>>>> might be a need for some federal law to ensure that states
    >>>>>>> recognized marriages performed in other states. It could be
    >>>>>>> marriage-specific and not include all the other things we are
    >>>>>>> licensed for. "Umbrella" in that it pertains to all states, not
    >>>>>>> all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>>> understatement.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
    >>>>>> matter of licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single
    >>>>>> type of license and *only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous
    >>>>> law and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for
    >>>> the same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman,
    >>>> not a man and a kitty/TV set/other man.
    >>>
    >>> And this one.
    >>>>
    >>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
    >>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    >>>>> suffrage amendments were.
    >>>>
    >>>> What you want is not equal rights under the law
    >>>
    >>> And this one.
    >>>
    >>>> This has been explained to you many times now.
    >>>
    >>> And the nonsense of your positions to you.
    >>>
    >>>> Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages
    >>>> were cantaloupes.
    >>>>
    >>> And this one.

    >>
    >> You have not refuted any of them, and cannot.
    >>
    >> Tell you what: as soon as you can show where any single one of them is
    >> wrong, I'll promptly drop that one. Then you can move on to the next,
    >> and so on.
    >>
    >> The fact that you cannot produce a single logical argument against
    >> any of them should tell you something, but apparently it does not. So
    >> you remain unhappy. That is neither my fault nor my problem.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out
    >>> by the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
    >>> with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
    >>> wrong.

    >>
    >> "Same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and being
    >> nonexistent has no power to "creep me out." It is sort of like
    >> "Cocker Spaniel kitten." Now *that* might very well creep me out, if
    >> there were such a thing.
    >>>
    >>> I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
    >>> about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
    >>> can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
    >>> concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
    >>> gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
    >>> you can convince yourself.

    >>
    >> It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
    >> understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not
    >> change with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that,
    >> you're most of the way home.
    >>
    >> In only five of our states, most of them small liberal states in the
    >> northeast, and one city, all combined having only a very small
    >> portion of the country's population, and much of that population
    >> disagreeing with the change in definition anyway, has the meaning of
    >> "marriage" been changed, quite arbitrarily, to mean something
    >> different from what it has meant. In the vast majority of the rest of
    >> the world the meaning of "marriage" has not changed at all. In our
    >> own federal government it has not changed.
    >> The question, then, is, not how can I convince myself of anything,
    >> but how can *you* convince yourself that the definition of "marriage"
    >> is other than what it is and has always been?

    >
    > It isn't the definition that's the problem. Its the governments addition
    > to the definition. They took what was a religious ritual, and put it
    > into their form 1040 so there was a seperate tax table for marrieds., As
    > soon as they did that, they left themselves open to other people who
    > couldn't marry their significant others to bitch about it. What goes
    > around comes around. Now, they have this big problem on their hands. A
    > million or more gay couples are screaming to get, "Married", and whose
    > fault is that?


    What's wrong with that?

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 29, 2011
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:11:42 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
    wrote:

    >Neil Harrington wrote:
    > This is a racist country
    >>> with a racist government that engages in racist practices and has all
    >>> of my life. They single out special groups and either take away
    >>> priviledges or give extra priviledges to them (you can't give extra
    >>> priviledges to one group without taking them away from some other
    >>> group.) We give special priviledges to Native Americans, Black
    >>> people, heterasexuals, and many other groups. We prosecute crimes
    >>> more heavily against some groups than others. Also, we don't even do
    >>> a good job of it. We frequently leave it up to some clerk to decide
    >>> who gets the priviledge and who doesn't based on appearance alone. It
    >>> is one of the things I hate most about my country.

    >>
    >> There are planes leaving every day, but I doubt you will ever be
    >> satisfied anywhere.
    >>
    >> You might want to try Iraq, now that we have "brought democracy" to
    >> them.
    >> <guffaw!>

    >
    >There is no place that is any better than here, unfortunately. And all the
    >available land already belongs to someone, so there is no way I can start my
    >own country. I was born about 300 years too late for that. But that doesn't
    >stop me from bitching about it. It is possible to change it, you know. Maybe
    >it will become less racist if there are enough people like me yapping about
    >it.


    Lobby for more funding for space exploration, then. Maybe your
    great-grandkids can found a new country on another planet or moon,
    once such settlements can be self-sufficient.
    John A., Apr 29, 2011
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:18:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
    wrote:

    >Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "John A." <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
    >>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
    >>>>>>>>> forces states to recognize the rights that other states provide
    >>>>>>>>> for their citizens.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
    >>>>>>>> concealed firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
    >>>>>>>> surrounding mine.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
    >>>>>>> might be a need for some federal law to ensure that states
    >>>>>>> recognized marriages performed in other states. It could be
    >>>>>>> marriage-specific and not include all the other things we are
    >>>>>>> licensed for. "Umbrella" in that it pertains to all states, not
    >>>>>>> all licenses and permits.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
    >>>>>> understatement.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
    >>>>>> matter of licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single
    >>>>>> type of license and *only* for the benefit of a single group?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
    >>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous
    >>>>> law and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for
    >>>> the same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman,
    >>>> not a man and a kitty/TV set/other man.
    >>>
    >>> And this one.
    >>>>
    >>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
    >>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
    >>>>> suffrage amendments were.
    >>>>
    >>>> What you want is not equal rights under the law
    >>>
    >>> And this one.
    >>>
    >>>> This has been explained to you many times now.
    >>>
    >>> And the nonsense of your positions to you.
    >>>
    >>>> Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages
    >>>> were cantaloupes.
    >>>>
    >>> And this one.

    >>
    >> You have not refuted any of them, and cannot.
    >>
    >> Tell you what: as soon as you can show where any single one of them is
    >> wrong, I'll promptly drop that one. Then you can move on to the next,
    >> and so on.
    >>
    >> The fact that you cannot produce a single logical argument against
    >> any of them should tell you something, but apparently it does not. So
    >> you remain unhappy. That is neither my fault nor my problem.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out
    >>> by the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
    >>> with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
    >>> wrong.

    >>
    >> "Same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and being
    >> nonexistent has no power to "creep me out." It is sort of like
    >> "Cocker Spaniel kitten." Now *that* might very well creep me out, if
    >> there were such a thing.
    >>>
    >>> I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
    >>> about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
    >>> can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
    >>> concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
    >>> gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
    >>> you can convince yourself.

    >>
    >> It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
    >> understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not
    >> change with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that,
    >> you're most of the way home.
    >>
    >> In only five of our states, most of them small liberal states in the
    >> northeast, and one city, all combined having only a very small
    >> portion of the country's population, and much of that population
    >> disagreeing with the change in definition anyway, has the meaning of
    >> "marriage" been changed, quite arbitrarily, to mean something
    >> different from what it has meant. In the vast majority of the rest of
    >> the world the meaning of "marriage" has not changed at all. In our
    >> own federal government it has not changed.
    >> The question, then, is, not how can I convince myself of anything,
    >> but how can *you* convince yourself that the definition of "marriage"
    >> is other than what it is and has always been?

    >
    >It isn't the definition that's the problem. Its the governments addition to
    >the definition. They took what was a religious ritual, and put it into their
    >form 1040 so there was a seperate tax table for marrieds., As soon as they
    >did that, they left themselves open to other people who couldn't marry their
    >significant others to bitch about it. What goes around comes around. Now,
    >they have this big problem on their hands. A million or more gay couples are
    >screaming to get, "Married", and whose fault is that?


    The people who wouldn't let them marry before. This is a correction,
    not a problem.
    John A., Apr 29, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    189
  2. charles

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    charles, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    208
    Pete Stavrakoglou
    Mar 24, 2011
  3. PeterN

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    PeterN, Mar 26, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    112
    Views:
    1,630
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  4. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    614
    Views:
    7,028
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  5. PeterN

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    PeterN, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    405
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page