Dear Mary...

"Replacement_Tommel" wrote in
message ...

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


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

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

I'm surprised this debate is still going on in this thread. Stephen, as I
advised you earlier, let it go.


Can't. It's too much fun!

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

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

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

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

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


"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

That's not the way the laws are.

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

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

I shall rephrase, because you are dense.

That's no way to talk to your teacher.

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

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

Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

Not according to the courts.

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

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

And you are welcome to try to change them so you can marry sheep.


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



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


Why?



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


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



Not according to the courts.


It's not up to the courts.

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

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

"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:T8G5c.22199$Cb.470749@attbi_s51...

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



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

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

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

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Larry Kessler" wrote:

You aren't the one doing the defining.

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

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

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

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

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