x-no-archive: yes

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> >> gays from marrying?
> >> >
> >> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
> >> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
> >> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> >> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
> >>
> >> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> >> a sibling marriage.
> >
> >Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
> >children are impossible?
>
> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>
> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?

It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous? What if they just want those
rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?

> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> gay marriage?

The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
reasons already mentioned here.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> >> gays from marrying?
> >> >
> >> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
> >> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
> >> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> >> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
> >>
> >> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> >> a sibling marriage.
> >
> >Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
> >children are impossible?
>
> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>
> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?

It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous? What if they just want those
rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?

> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> gay marriage?

The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
reasons already mentioned here.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> >> gay marriage?
> >
> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>
> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
> incest.
>
> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!

Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?

 

x-no-archive: yes

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> >> gay marriage?
> >
> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>
> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
> incest.
>
> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!

Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?

 

x-no-archive: yes

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> >> gay marriage?
> >
> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>
> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
> incest.
>
> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!

Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:37:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
>American Medical Association,

All of these groups classified homosexuality as a mental disorder
until liberal organizations conned government into removing all
funding from them under the guise that calling a mental disorder a
disorder is discriminatory.

Once the power of money got in the way, science was no longer
important.

The fact is that homosexuality can not be genetic. Two major reasons
- it would have disappeared a long time ago as homos can't reproduce,
and both twins of identical twins are no more often homosexual than
the rest of the population is, which is 5%.

Take that and stuff it up your rather large *** hole and smoke it.

>government of Ontario, government of Canada,

Governments are certainly not authoritative on science. Even an idiot
like you should know that.

>government of Germany, government of Holland

Yes, we all get our facts about --- from Holland.

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:37:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
>American Medical Association,

All of these groups classified homosexuality as a mental disorder
until liberal organizations conned government into removing all
funding from them under the guise that calling a mental disorder a
disorder is discriminatory.

Once the power of money got in the way, science was no longer
important.

The fact is that homosexuality can not be genetic. Two major reasons
- it would have disappeared a long time ago as homos can't reproduce,
and both twins of identical twins are no more often homosexual than
the rest of the population is, which is 5%.

Take that and stuff it up your rather large *** hole and smoke it.

>government of Ontario, government of Canada,

Governments are certainly not authoritative on science. Even an idiot
like you should know that.

>government of Germany, government of Holland

Yes, we all get our facts about --- from Holland.

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:37:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
>American Medical Association,

All of these groups classified homosexuality as a mental disorder
until liberal organizations conned government into removing all
funding from them under the guise that calling a mental disorder a
disorder is discriminatory.

Once the power of money got in the way, science was no longer
important.

The fact is that homosexuality can not be genetic. Two major reasons
- it would have disappeared a long time ago as homos can't reproduce,
and both twins of identical twins are no more often homosexual than
the rest of the population is, which is 5%.

Take that and stuff it up your rather large *** hole and smoke it.

>government of Ontario, government of Canada,

Governments are certainly not authoritative on science. Even an idiot
like you should know that.

>government of Germany, government of Holland

Yes, we all get our facts about --- from Holland.

 

AHoudini wrote:

> Right wing faith based beliefs are being spead around the internet by rats
> that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
> where politics isn't the topic.

That's pretty far out there. Nobody was discussing Rush Limbaugh. Naturally
though you like to be able to say who should not be allowed to post on politics,
in the next sentence after you do so yourself.

>
>
> Bill Funk wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> >>>>
> >>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
> not
> >>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
> >>>
> >>>Depends on how you look at it.
> >>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
> >>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
> >>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
> >>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
> >>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
> >>>ignore what they believe in.
> >>
> >>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
> seem
> >>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
> get
> >>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
> >
> >You're completely missing what I'm saying.
> >Probably on purpose.
> >
> >Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
> >religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
> >further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
> >lives.
> >I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
> >But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
> >*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
> >Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
> >Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
> >>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
> >>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
> >>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
> >>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
> >>>experience?
> >>>
> >>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
> >>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
> >>>recognized.
> >>>
> >
> >--
> >Bill Funk
> >replace "g" with "a"

 

AHoudini wrote:

> Right wing faith based beliefs are being spead around the internet by rats
> that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
> where politics isn't the topic.

That's pretty far out there. Nobody was discussing Rush Limbaugh. Naturally
though you like to be able to say who should not be allowed to post on politics,
in the next sentence after you do so yourself.

>
>
> Bill Funk wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> >>>>
> >>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
> not
> >>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
> >>>
> >>>Depends on how you look at it.
> >>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
> >>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
> >>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
> >>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
> >>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
> >>>ignore what they believe in.
> >>
> >>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
> seem
> >>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
> get
> >>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
> >
> >You're completely missing what I'm saying.
> >Probably on purpose.
> >
> >Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
> >religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
> >further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
> >lives.
> >I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
> >But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
> >*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
> >Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
> >Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
> >>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
> >>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
> >>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
> >>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
> >>>experience?
> >>>
> >>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
> >>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
> >>>recognized.
> >>>
> >
> >--
> >Bill Funk
> >replace "g" with "a"