From: "Andrealphus" 

On Mar 19, 9:35�pm, "Mark Sebree"  wrote:
> On Mar 19, 5:22 pm, lorad...{at}cs.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 12:51 pm, "Mark Sebree"
 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 4:26 pm, "John D.Wentzky"

> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Innews:1174332579.006609.57910{at}n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> > > > thomas p.  typed:
>
> > > > > On 19 Mar., 17:40, "John D.Wentzky"

> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
Innews:1174322257.074547.319270{at}b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
> > > > >> John  typed:
>
> > > > >>> On Mar 18, 11:38 pm, lorad...{at}cs.com wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet"
> > > > >>>>  wrote:
>
> > > >
>>>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> > > > >>>> "The bishop
> > > > >>>> referred to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights where it
> > > > >>>> states that "the family is the
natural and fundamental group unit
> > > > >>>> of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the
state."
>
> > > > >>>> "If family stability is weakened,
the fundamental group unit of
> > > > >>>> society is also weakened," Bishop
Sgreccia said. "
>
> > > > >>>> Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>
> > > > >>> How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
>
> > > > >> Are you saying you are for brothers/cousins,
etc entering into
> > > > >> marriage agreements?
>
> > > > > Did he even mention brothers/cousins?
>
> > > > He didn't need to.
>
> > > Nor did you.  Nobody ever made the claim that you said was made.
>
> > > > Same-sex marriage is same-sex marriage.
>
> > > And it is the same things as opposite sex marriages.
>
> > No it isn't. Same sex marriages are abnormal by definition.
>
> There is nothing abnormal about same sex marriage.

Actually there is. As a practicing Homosexual that services over 50 men a
night at the adult bookstores, I can honestly say that A.I.D.S is a reality
for Gay men.
>
>
>
> > > > Unequal privileges are unequal privileges.
>
> > > And that is what you want, for homosexuals to have less privileges
> > > than heterosexuals.  You do not want homosexuals to have equal rights.
>
> > it's not necessarily individuals or even religions that mandate that
> > same-sex marriages are a contradiction in terms.
>
> Yes, it is individuals and religions that mandate this.  And they can
> be ignored since nobody should be forced to abide by another person's
> religious beliefs, and another person cannot force you to live by his
> rules.
>
> > It is Nature itself
> > who makes the definitive statement.
>
> And Nature obviously approves of same sex couples since there are on
> the order of 1500 species of animals known, including other primates,
> that include same sex mating.
>
>
>
> > > > Homosexual is not equivalent to heterosexual so it can
not be awarded
equal
> > > > treatment to heterosexual marriage.
>
> > > This very statements shows clearly that you are proposing that
> > > homosexuals have fewer rights than heterosexuals for no valid reason.
>
> > For valid reason.. For the valid reason of their being unable to
> > create children.
>
> That is not a valid reason.  Many, many couples that get married never
> produce children.  This could be because of age, biological reasons,
> previous surgery, or personal choice.  However, none of these prevent
> these couples from getting married.
>
> Therefore, it is easy to show that your so-called "valid reason" is
> invalid and non-existant in reality.
>
>
>
> > > Homosexuals ARE equivalent to heterosexuals because both groups are
> > > groups of human beings.
>
> > But humanity is not hermaphroditic... a small oversight on your part.
>
> No oversight on my part.  Just your homophobia and bigotry talking.
> Homosexuals are equivalent and equal to heterosexuals.
>
>
>
> > > Marriage is the legal joining of two
> > > consenting adults.
>
> > Two consenting 'marriageable' adults.
>
> Which means being of legal age, single, consenting to the marriage,
> and not be close relatives.  There are no other significant valid
> criteria needed.  The genders of the persons getting married is not an
> issue.
>
> > In most states 'marriageable' is
> > defined as man and woman.
>
> And that is what must be changed.  That is blatant discrimination
> against homosexuals in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal
> Protection clause.  Homosexuals do not have the same rights as
> heterosexuals for no good and valid reason.
>
>
>
> > > There is no valid reason why two men or two women
> > > cannot get married if they so wish in the same manner and for the same
> > > reasons as a man and a woman.
>
> > Go argue with Nature not us.
>
> I do not need to.  There are homosexual matings and couples throughout
> the Animal Kingdom.  You are the one that needs to argue with Nature,
> since Nature does not agree with you.
>
> > Nature says such 'marriages' are
> > biological abnormalities.
>
> No, it does not.
>
>
>
> > > Homosexuals should have the same rights
> > > as heterosexuals, and that includes the right to marry the consenting
> > > single person of his or her choice.
>
> > Your best bet is to find a socialist society that welcomes the
> > destruction of the traditional and normal family unit.
>
> Why?  That is not what I am proposing.  Homosexual marriages will not
> affect heterosexual marriages in any way.
>
> > Such places are
> > much more likely to endure biological impossibilities
>
> Which are not being discussed here.
>
> > - as they also
> > seek the destruction of the family unit
>
> Which is not under discussion.  The subject is same sex marriages, and
> they do not adversely affect families at all.
>
> > - by attempting to assume
> > familial authority and control to their governments.
>
> No idea what you are talking about.  The subject is same sex
> marriages, not your idle fantasies.  Same sex marriages will not
> adversely affect families at all.
>
>
>
> > > In your post, you demonstrated that you are indeed a homophobe, and
> > > you support discrimination and denial of equal rights to a segment of
> > > the citizens of the USA for no valid reason.
>
> > > Mark Sebree
>
> > Equal rights is a false flag to attempt to march under.
>
> No, it is not.  Everyone is supposed to have the same rights under the
> US Constitution.  Therefore, Equal Rights is a perfectly valid "flag"
> to march under given that is the goal.
>
> > There is no law that will ever compel Nature to allow same sex
> > marriages to produce children.
>
> Marriages are about more than producing children.  What's more, you
> have no idea what Nature allows.  Your post proves this.
>
>
>
> > 'Civil unions' where allowed, should be sufficient for any same-sex
> > couples anywhere.
>
> No, they should not be.  The "separate but equal" doctrine has long
> since been shown to not work.  There is no logical reason why
> homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals.
> Anything less would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause of
> the US Constitution.
>
> Just because you are a bigot does not mean that anyone else should be
> forced to abide by your irrational ideas and preferences.
>
> > For people to try to pretend that they are something - that they are
> > not - is insanity.
>
> Which is what you are doing.  You are pretending that homosexuals are
> something that they are not.  You are pretending that they are
> "subhuman", and thus not entitled to the same rights as
> heterosexuals.  Thus, by your own admission, your position is
> insanity.
>
> Homosexuals are as human, as much people, and much citizens of the USA
> are heterosexuals are.  Therefore they are entitles to the same rights
> and privileges as heterosexuals.  Anything less is a violation of
> their rights as American citizens.
>
> Mark Sebree- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag