🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>
>> 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.  

>
>> 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?  


>> 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.

>
>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.

Dale Anderson
Boulder, Colorado
dalea@ix.netcom.com