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

> Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
> marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
> lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of
> happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
> convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.

Voters in 11 states did NOT vote to repeal the rights to life liberty
and pursuit of happiness. They voted to not allow the definition of
marriage to be changed. Last time I checked "marriage" was not a
right the people of this country are granted.

on a similar note: It bothers me that a crime committed against
a minority is usually described as a 'hate crime' but one committed against
a non-minority is "not as bad"...WTF, assault is assault, murder is murder,
and
the reason is not more important than the actual crime.

> Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
> marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
> lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of
> happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
> convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.

Voters in 11 states did NOT vote to repeal the rights to life liberty
and pursuit of happiness. They voted to not allow the definition of
marriage to be changed. Last time I checked "marriage" was not a
right the people of this country are granted.

on a similar note: It bothers me that a crime committed against
a minority is usually described as a 'hate crime' but one committed against
a non-minority is "not as bad"...WTF, assault is assault, murder is murder,
and
the reason is not more important than the actual crime.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>
>
>>>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?
>
>>It's called DEMOCRACY.
>
> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority.

Better than tyranny of the minority.

> But why quibble over nomenclature?

That's what liberals do.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>
>
>>>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?
>
>>It's called DEMOCRACY.
>
> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority.

Better than tyranny of the minority.

> But why quibble over nomenclature?

That's what liberals do.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>>> It's called DEMOCRACY.
>>
>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble
>> over
>> nomenclature?
>>
>>
>>> 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!
>>
>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>>
>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>>
>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>
> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better health
> benefits, Medicare, etc.

Let's not go trans species - okay?

Besides, my dog's always married.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>>> It's called DEMOCRACY.
>>
>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble
>> over
>> nomenclature?
>>
>>
>>> 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!
>>
>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>>
>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>>
>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>
> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better health
> benefits, Medicare, etc.

Let's not go trans species - okay?

Besides, my dog's always married.

Bill Putney wrote:

> 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.

KNOTHEAD!

Bill Putney wrote:

> 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.

KNOTHEAD!

Sparky wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's called DEMOCRACY.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble
>>> over
>>> nomenclature?
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
>>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
>>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>>>
>>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>>
>>
>> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better
>> health benefits, Medicare, etc.
>
>
> Let's not go trans species - okay?

If we talk about homosexual marriage you can't avoid it. There are
people who are seriously in favor of this, and if the homosexuals get
their way this will be the next cause celeb.


Matt

Sparky wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's called DEMOCRACY.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble
>>> over
>>> nomenclature?
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
>>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
>>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>>>
>>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>>
>>
>> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better
>> health benefits, Medicare, etc.
>
>
> Let's not go trans species - okay?

If we talk about homosexual marriage you can't avoid it. There are
people who are seriously in favor of this, and if the homosexuals get
their way this will be the next cause celeb.


Matt