Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

vince garcia wrote:
> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!

I believe that business owners have the right to control the "character"
(for lack of the right word at this hour) of their establishment, but
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. I wouldn't want my
customers to walk in when two people were sucking on each other, for
example. That's not the environment I'd want in my business. But the
line is a difficult one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant"
homosexuals would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks
in times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be
offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail.

> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.

No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal freedom
of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more complicated
than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for many is simple
the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating against
homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on their skin
color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they possibly
choose otherwise.

> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if
> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
> inflict their own morality on someone else!"

You have a point here. ;-)

In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact would
be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just think of
the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your hypothesis!

> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination
> is always unconstitutional.

Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is
favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent
abuse of power with these laws.

> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell
> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.

You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is (or
should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see
heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't
want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I
sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't believe
what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication" by
anyone. But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a
means to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.

It's actually too bad that the anti-gay-marriage crowd hasn't thought of
the stabilizing influence in society of marriage. I bet there would be a
lot less promiscuity and public display of gay sexuality if everyone
would just leave it alone, and treat gays just like everyone else.

Ahh well. I have to leave this discussion, I've run out of steam for it.

vince garcia wrote:
> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!

I believe that business owners have the right to control the "character"
(for lack of the right word at this hour) of their establishment, but
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. I wouldn't want my
customers to walk in when two people were sucking on each other, for
example. That's not the environment I'd want in my business. But the
line is a difficult one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant"
homosexuals would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks
in times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be
offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail.

> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.

No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal freedom
of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more complicated
than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for many is simple
the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating against
homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on their skin
color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they possibly
choose otherwise.

> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if
> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
> inflict their own morality on someone else!"

You have a point here. ;-)

In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact would
be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just think of
the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your hypothesis!

> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination
> is always unconstitutional.

Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is
favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent
abuse of power with these laws.

> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell
> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.

You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is (or
should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see
heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't
want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I
sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't believe
what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication" by
anyone. But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a
means to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.

It's actually too bad that the anti-gay-marriage crowd hasn't thought of
the stabilizing influence in society of marriage. I bet there would be a
lot less promiscuity and public display of gay sexuality if everyone
would just leave it alone, and treat gays just like everyone else.

Ahh well. I have to leave this discussion, I've run out of steam for it.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it enough just to say "I
>>>accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour?" What if one goes
>>>to church every Sunday, is *that* enough? How 'bout if one says the
>>>words, goes to church *and* gives money to Christian charities, would
>>>*that* make one a Christian? Or is all of that maybe necessary to
>>>varying degrees but not sufficient? Is it maybe necessary to walk the
>>>walk as well as talking the talk? To really spend time and effort
>>>thinking "What would Jesus do?"...and then spend time and effort doing
>>>it?
>>
>>It matters not
>
>
> So you're copping out and begging off. Mmkay, that's your prerogative.

Nope. Just saying that the the answers are available for those who wnat
to know. Free will is a wonderful thing, and if a person doesn't want
to know, that's fine. My responsibility is to make the information
available. My responsiblity stops there - no guilt involved on my part.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it enough just to say "I
>>>accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour?" What if one goes
>>>to church every Sunday, is *that* enough? How 'bout if one says the
>>>words, goes to church *and* gives money to Christian charities, would
>>>*that* make one a Christian? Or is all of that maybe necessary to
>>>varying degrees but not sufficient? Is it maybe necessary to walk the
>>>walk as well as talking the talk? To really spend time and effort
>>>thinking "What would Jesus do?"...and then spend time and effort doing
>>>it?
>>
>>It matters not
>
>
> So you're copping out and begging off. Mmkay, that's your prerogative.

Nope. Just saying that the the answers are available for those who wnat
to know. Free will is a wonderful thing, and if a person doesn't want
to know, that's fine. My responsibility is to make the information
available. My responsiblity stops there - no guilt involved on my part.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Abeness wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
>> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
>> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
>> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree
>> are worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization,
>> but I don't hate homosexuals.
>
>
> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live.

The lifestyle is not the issue - it's the legal sanction of it that is
distasteful. No problem with live and let live. You're basically
pulling as shell game here in your logic - but you knew that.


> It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have
> freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from
> doing so?

No problem there. But in the very next paragraph you are saying you
want government to sanction their "marriage". Trying to slip one in on
us? (pun intended)

>
> Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly
> nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just
> like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they
> can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your
> lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of
> citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and
> passed a law against it?

But I'm not asking them to pass new laws to promote, endorse, and
encourage my hypothetical unapproved lifestyle. That's effectively what
you're asking for in demanding legal recognition of gay "marriage" (an
oxymoron).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Abeness wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
>> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
>> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
>> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree
>> are worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization,
>> but I don't hate homosexuals.
>
>
> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live.

The lifestyle is not the issue - it's the legal sanction of it that is
distasteful. No problem with live and let live. You're basically
pulling as shell game here in your logic - but you knew that.


> It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have
> freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from
> doing so?

No problem there. But in the very next paragraph you are saying you
want government to sanction their "marriage". Trying to slip one in on
us? (pun intended)

>
> Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly
> nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just
> like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they
> can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your
> lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of
> citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and
> passed a law against it?

But I'm not asking them to pass new laws to promote, endorse, and
encourage my hypothetical unapproved lifestyle. That's effectively what
you're asking for in demanding legal recognition of gay "marriage" (an
oxymoron).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
>>a rock - what do you tell him?
>
>
> Ah, Bill's true colors finally show through.
>
> You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
> is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
> prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.

Well if the medical thing was used in the past to prevent racially mixed
marriage, then, by liberal logic, "medical reasons" can never be used
for denail of alleged rights in any "rights" issue in the future,
because we all know that if a = b, then d = f (by liberal logic).

Oh, but Daniel - he disagrees with you about the sentient part, and by
your saying those things are not sentient, you are denying his right to
believe whatever the hell he wants to. After all - what rules of "live
and let live" would he be violating, what harm would there be in his
being married to his beloved dogwood tree - that is the only cirteria
there is - that no-one be harmed, right? You would deny him that just
because of some unprovable beliefs that you have about emotions and
ability to give consent and insist on imposing on him? Please don't
impose your beliefs that trees don't have feelings and that they can't
express intent and desire on that poor fellow. Or, another fellow is
going to say that you have no right to impose the sentienticity
requirement on an object that will not be emotionally harmed by the
arrangement he is requesting, no - demanding.

You're coming up with such "arbitrary" rules in your oppressive
arguments to not allow full sanction of "marriage" between him and his dog.

Next you;re going to say that there is a rule that a marriage must be
between two human beings. How old fashioned and religious that
constraint is!!

Seriously - why do you get to apply constraints (such as the sentient
thing) to the argument that otherwise has no rules (after all we, by
definition have to throw out the Bible in these matters) when it suits
your purpose, but when others do so, they are being arbitrary and
imposing their religious beliefs on others?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
>>a rock - what do you tell him?
>
>
> Ah, Bill's true colors finally show through.
>
> You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
> is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
> prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.

Well if the medical thing was used in the past to prevent racially mixed
marriage, then, by liberal logic, "medical reasons" can never be used
for denail of alleged rights in any "rights" issue in the future,
because we all know that if a = b, then d = f (by liberal logic).

Oh, but Daniel - he disagrees with you about the sentient part, and by
your saying those things are not sentient, you are denying his right to
believe whatever the hell he wants to. After all - what rules of "live
and let live" would he be violating, what harm would there be in his
being married to his beloved dogwood tree - that is the only cirteria
there is - that no-one be harmed, right? You would deny him that just
because of some unprovable beliefs that you have about emotions and
ability to give consent and insist on imposing on him? Please don't
impose your beliefs that trees don't have feelings and that they can't
express intent and desire on that poor fellow. Or, another fellow is
going to say that you have no right to impose the sentienticity
requirement on an object that will not be emotionally harmed by the
arrangement he is requesting, no - demanding.

You're coming up with such "arbitrary" rules in your oppressive
arguments to not allow full sanction of "marriage" between him and his dog.

Next you;re going to say that there is a rule that a marriage must be
between two human beings. How old fashioned and religious that
constraint is!!

Seriously - why do you get to apply constraints (such as the sentient
thing) to the argument that otherwise has no rules (after all we, by
definition have to throw out the Bible in these matters) when it suits
your purpose, but when others do so, they are being arbitrary and
imposing their religious beliefs on others?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Abeness wrote:

> vince garcia wrote:
>
>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>
>
> I believe that business owners have the right to control the "character"
> (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their establishment, but
> I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. I wouldn't want my
> customers to walk in when two people were sucking on each other, for
> example. That's not the environment I'd want in my business. But the
> line is a difficult one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant"
> homosexuals would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks
> in times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be
> offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail.
>
>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>
>
> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal freedom
> of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more complicated
> than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for many is simple
> the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating against
> homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on their skin
> color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they possibly
> choose otherwise.

My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me to
marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.

>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if
>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>
>
> You have a point here. ;-)
>
> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact would
> be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just think of
> the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your hypothesis!
>
>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination
>> is always unconstitutional.
>
>
> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is
> favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent
> abuse of power with these laws.
>
>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell
>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>
>
> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is (or
> should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see
> heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't
> want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I
> sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't believe
> what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication" by
> anyone.

Although that is being pushed for by some also.

> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a
> means to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do
> so.

I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government sanction,
encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - after all -
that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove otherwise.

> It's actually too bad that the anti-gay-marriage crowd hasn't thought of
> the stabilizing influence in society of marriage. I bet there would be a
> lot less promiscuity and public display of gay sexuality if everyone
> would just leave it alone, and treat gays just like everyone else.
>
> Ahh well. I have to leave this discussion, I've run out of steam for it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Abeness wrote:

> vince garcia wrote:
>
>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>
>
> I believe that business owners have the right to control the "character"
> (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their establishment, but
> I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. I wouldn't want my
> customers to walk in when two people were sucking on each other, for
> example. That's not the environment I'd want in my business. But the
> line is a difficult one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant"
> homosexuals would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks
> in times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be
> offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail.
>
>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>
>
> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal freedom
> of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more complicated
> than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for many is simple
> the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating against
> homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on their skin
> color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they possibly
> choose otherwise.

My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me to
marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.

>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if
>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>
>
> You have a point here. ;-)
>
> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact would
> be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just think of
> the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your hypothesis!
>
>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination
>> is always unconstitutional.
>
>
> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is
> favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent
> abuse of power with these laws.
>
>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell
>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>
>
> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is (or
> should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see
> heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't
> want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I
> sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't believe
> what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication" by
> anyone.

Although that is being pushed for by some also.

> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a
> means to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do
> so.

I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government sanction,
encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - after all -
that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove otherwise.

> It's actually too bad that the anti-gay-marriage crowd hasn't thought of
> the stabilizing influence in society of marriage. I bet there would be a
> lot less promiscuity and public display of gay sexuality if everyone
> would just leave it alone, and treat gays just like everyone else.
>
> Ahh well. I have to leave this discussion, I've run out of steam for it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---