🚀 go-pugleaf

Dale Anderson wrote:
> 
> Andrew Dashiell <afdash@wndrlst.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mr. Mills:
> >>
> >> Voting for the "Defense of Marriage" bill has nothing, whatsoever, to
> >> do with discrimination against homosexuals.  It simply REaffirms the
> >          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >BULLSHIT - what planet do you live on?
> 
> My, there is an intelligent, reasoned response!  Boy, I can tell
> already that you have something deep and insightful to add to this
> discussion, so I will give you all the attention you deserve.

It arranted no more detailed response. The Act is, on its face,
discriminatory to homosexuals, in letter and, most emphatically, intent.
To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.
 
> >
> >> traditional belief that marriage is a culturally sanctioned and
> >> recognized relationship between one man and one woman.  Nothing more,
> >> nothing less.  If you continue to feel that it is discriminatory to
> >> you, then you should, logically, also rally in support of bigamists,
> >                                                            ^^^^^^^^^
> >if all parties are consenting adults, why not? Other societies, most
> >notably Muslim ones, do not condemn this practice. Our own Mormon
> >brethren have abandoned it largely as the result of severe persecution
> >in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
> 
> Fine, move to Iraq.

Aah, you don't care for Muslims either...a pattern emerges.

BTW, Iraq's government is secular. Tariq Aziz, among other cabinet
officials, is Christian. Others in the government are Druze, Sunni
Muslim, Shi'ite Muslim, etc. *Iran* (perhaps you meant Iran...or are
they yesterday's bogeyman?) declares itself to be an Islamic state, but
adheres to some very selective Shi'ite interpretation of the Q'uran and
the Hadith. Countries with significant Muslim populations extend accross
the Arab world, into sub-saharan Africa and across much of central,
southern and south-east Asia. At current rates of growth, there will be
more Muslims than Christians in the world in a few years. Off-topic
here, but just a little FYI. 
> >
> >> people who want to marry children, and those weirdos who love their
> >                           ^^^^^^^^
> >does not meet the consenting adults standard. That minors do not enjoy
> >the full Constitutional protections of adults is well established, for
> >reasonds that are rational and for which the state has demonstrated a
> >compelling interest.
> >
> 
> Wait a minute, in my post, I do not once mention "consenting adults".
> I do not accept that as a standard as far as sexual relationships are
> concerned.  Why don't you check your facts before spouting off?  In
> most states, the legal age of consent is 16, in some 14 (maybe 13 in
> one or two, but I am not sure about that).  In what way do you
> consider someone of that age an adult?

I don't and I would advocate that those state laws be changed. However,
if you dig a little deeper, you'd probably find that those laws put an
upper-end age restriction on the relationship. That is, the age of
consent may be 14 - 16, but only if consenting to another young person.
 
> >> dogs just a little bit too much because they all want committed,
> >  ^^^^^
> >now you're just getting ridiculous. Your biases and prejudices, though
> >stated civilly, are showing.
> 
> Thank you for your compliment, I do try to remain civil.  You put such
> a harsh light on bias and prejudice.  We all have them, you know,
> though I prefer to call them opinions.  However, we are talking about
> relationships.  Some people leave their worldly possesions to their
> cats, obviously the most important companion they have.  To test any
> argument, I think one should consider the boundary conditions and I
> believe that, while far fetched and for the purpose of discussion, I
> have no problem adding this type of relationship.  Can you state
> catagorically that no one ever wanted to marry their dog or barnyard
> animal?  And I'm not necessarily referring to that sheep herder in
> Wyoming....
> 
> >
> >> recognized relationships that do not fit the culturally accepted
> >> definition of  marriage.  And, Mr. Mills, no matter what your own
> >> personal pleasures and/or perversions include, sodomy, just like
> >> pedophilia, is illegal in many states and our society will never
> >> recognize a marriage relationship based upon either practice, nor
> >> should we.
> >(snip)
> >
> >"Sodomy" happens quite frequently in heterosexual relationships as
> >well.  A vast number of our society engage in and even enjoy it. It only
> >seems to raise hackles when it occurs between two individuals of the
> >same gender. There's no *rational* reason that I can think of why that
> >should be so. Can you provide one? Can someone please explain to me why
> >homosexuals should not enjoy both equal protection and equal rights (not
> >"special" rights - please don't resurrect that red herring) under the
> >law?
> 
> One rational reason?  It is the predominant method for the
> transmission of the AIDS virus.  It is statistically more dangerous
> when "enjoyed" by two consenting males.

Pointless - The vast majority of murderers and rapists are the fruit of
heterosexual relationships. Because of this, the state has a clear
compelling interest in regulating this behavior with such awful
consequences for the public welfare?

In many parts of the world AIDS is not a homosexual disease, but a
heterosexual one. It's primary method of transmission is unprotected
promiscuous sex of any kind. The disease rages out of control in many
parts of central Africa *despite the fact* that many of those societies
are *far less* tolerant of homosexuals than is our own.

If, indeed, promiscuity is the problem with AIDS (and other STDs) does
it not stand to reason that marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, would
tend to promote stable monogamous relationships?

> >
> >BTW, the it was often stated that "society" would never accept
> >interracial marriages; indeed, it was illegal in many states. In other
> >times and places it was Catholics and Protestants. And let's not forget
> >how Jews have been treated (the anti-Jewish laws in Nazi Germany were
> >all quite legal). Just because something is codified in law and enjoys
> >the support of a majority does not make it right - or, for that matter,
> >constitutional. James Madison et al understood this clearly in
> >enumerating the Bill of Rights. Subsequently, the Constitution has
> >continued to be amended as we, as a society, continue to shed irrational
> >prejudices. I wish the homophobia that continues to exist in our society
> >- without the slightest *rational* reason - would hurry up and fade away
> >as well.
> >
> >P.S. FWIW, the Bible is most emphatically *not* suited to serving as a
> >public policy manual. Please, let's keep mythology out of this
> >discussion.
> 
> Please, lets keep imagination out of this.  I did not once mention
> religion nor the bible.  I talked about morals.  Apples and oranges.

But where do these "morals" come from? What is the compelling societal
interest in continuing to deny homosexuals *equal* rights and protection
under the law? Please answer this question, if you can. Frankly, I don't
see any such compelling interest at all.

Cheerfully,
-- 
Andrew Dashiell
Wanderlust, Inc. Interactive Media Resources
10462 Independence Circle
Westminster, CO  80021
http://www.wndrlst.com
afdash@wndrlst.com