Dear Mary...

"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:MxG5c.23130$1p.432539@attbi_s54...

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?


I don't think human-animal marriage would be valid, but it would certainly
be just as valid as same-sex marriage.

"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
...

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


Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
argument.

Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" wrote in message
|| news:MxG5c.23130$1p.432539@attbi_s54...
|||
||| 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?
|||
||
|| I don't think human-animal marriage would be valid, but it would
|| certainly be just as valid as same-sex marriage.

Why? How? On what source do you base this statement? So, you think
same-sex marriage is valid? Note what you said, how you worded it, "...just
as valid as same-sex marriage". You could re-word it as follows: Same-sex
marriage is just as invalid as human-animal marriages would be. Then,
provide the *why*, give reasons to back that up and provide references from
which you rely on to make the points in your argument. [Like I said, am
just trying to help, you sinking here. LoL.] Write down a major
point/statement of your argument, then do a search on the net for refs that
would support it. Clearly, the biblical sources don't count with the
opposing side, although it really should in my opinion, so find other
sources. http://www.findlaw.com/
Or, go to history sites to see if anything in historical events is present
to support, precedence. You get the idea now?

You're right, this is kinda fun. I'm approaching it from a different angle,
coaching, yeah I like it. ;-) hehe

Which group are you posting from?

"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:BYG5c.22556$Cb.472121@attbi_s51...

Why? How? On what source do you base this statement?


Logic.



So, you think same-sex marriage is valid?


Nope.



Note what you said, how you worded it, "...just as valid as
same-sex marriage". You could re-word it as follows: Same-sex
marriage is just as invalid as human-animal marriages would be.


Yup, that works too.

In article T8G5c.22199$Cb.470749@attbi_s51, "~Nins~"
wrote:

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.]





Does the sex of the sheep matter?

It may not be an irrelevant analogy, since Mr. McNicoll does seem to be
pulling the wool over certain eyes.

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:26:17 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
.. .

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


Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
argument.

You haven't used a single fact. You wouldn't recognize a fact if one
jumped up on your desk and began singing "Happy Facts Are Here Again"

All you have been doing is making declarations; one with no support.
When declare that marriage requires a man and a woman, and we ask why,
that indicates that you need to post a little bit more.

So I will ask the obvious question: *Why* do you say that marriage
requires a man and a woman.

Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

Good for you. Evidently, there's also nothing we can post that will
get you to post anything more than declarations and ad hominem
attacks.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:20:55 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


"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, the difference is that humans can clearly indicate that
they understand marriage, and animals can't. You have a slight
problem there.

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

Why?

Because contract law depends on both parties being competent to
understand the implications of the agreement. This is why we don;t
allow 12 year olds to lease Porches, or cats to inherit estates. The
are not able to legally perform those actions. In both cases, a
guardian or executor handles the affairs. Were I to leave my vast
fortune (snerk) to my cat (assuming I had one) the court would appoint
a guardian to oversee the trust.

This is the reason why, when I was 17 and wanted to enlist, my
parents, as my guardians, had to sign a form giving me their
permission. Had I waited 7 months, I would have been legally able to
do it myself.

Now, marriage requires that *both parties* express competent consent.
That is, they both have to understand what marriage is, what it
requires, and the depth of commitment it calls for. They have to be
able to make it known, to a judge if necessary, that they do
understand this. For most of us, it's simply a matter of signing the
marriage certificate.

There have been numerous cases where developmentally disabled people
have sued fir, and won, the right to marry. Same for prisoners, the
terminally ill, and the like. All were able to show the ability to
understand what marriage is. So unless you want to marry Olga the
amazing Talking Genius Sheep, that animal is not going to pass the
legal hurdle.

The Sam-sex marriages aren't even talking about that. We are
discussing people who are adults, and are capable of understanding and
consenting to the obligations of civil marriage.

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?

Ad hominem attack noted.

Not according to the courts.

It's not up to the courts.

Actually, it is. The courts interpret the law. Article III, Section
2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. I can give you
piles of cases that directly counter your position.. starting with
Marbury v Madison and going up to the recent Supreme Court decision on
Sodomy laws.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Douglas Berry" wrote:

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?

Unwillingness to accept your premises and conclusions doesn't
necessarily mean we don't understand your arguments and explanations.

Not according to the courts.

It's not up to the courts.

Sooner or later, it will be, just as the controversy over interracial
marriages had to be settled by the US Supreme Court in Loving v.
Virginia, 1967. That's a much closer analogy to the issue of same-sex
marriage than the general issue of racial equal rights or interspecies
marriage, although you may well consider people of other races to
belong to some different, perhaps subhuman species.

--
__________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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Larry Kessler" wrote:

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

Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
argument.

Only if you dismiss everything said by your opponents in this debate
as nonfactual.

Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post
et:

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

That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who
doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and
might be learning-disabled.

--
__________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

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

You haven't used a single fact.


I posted the definition of marriage. What other pertinent facts are there?



Good for you. Evidently, there's also nothing we can post that will
get you to post anything more than declarations and ad hominem
attacks.


If you know what an ad hominem attack is you know I haven't posted one.