tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8460033524618253737..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Gay Marriage and Coming Out of the ClosetUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74259881689465485552007-10-07T14:34:00.000-04:002007-10-07T14:34:00.000-04:00All I can say is, Shygetz and others, thanks for y...All I can say is, Shygetz and others, thanks for your lucid points. "WoundedEgo" is well and accurately named in this debate. I wonder if he realizes how transparent his homophobia is, with his use of words such as "same sex frolicking", reducing relationships to simple hedonism...(and WoundedEgo, "reducing relationships to simple hedonism" are MY words, not me putting words into your mouth...there is a difference in drawing a conclusion from your words and putting words in your mouth, though I've noticed you can't see such differences.)Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16480517935998292531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76332386472806682862007-10-03T18:22:00.000-04:002007-10-03T18:22:00.000-04:00Ditto...I think the meat of our arguments are here...Ditto...I think the meat of our arguments are here for any interested person to peruse.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53037852850563880452007-10-03T17:21:00.000-04:002007-10-03T17:21:00.000-04:00I think I'm going to take a needed break.Bill Ross...I think I'm going to take a needed break.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86693455500177090532007-10-03T16:52:00.000-04:002007-10-03T16:52:00.000-04:00>>>"Spousal privilege"...clearly states that commu...>>>"Spousal privilege"...clearly states that communications between married partners cannot be used as evidence against one of those partners in court, and a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse....<BR/><BR/>Not quite. The first part is false, the second part is true in some situations. For example, it is not true in a polygamy case. There are other forms of protected communications that do not necessitate marriage:<BR/><BR/>"-- The privilege assumes a legal marriage. Some states recognize common law marriage (we'll talk about that in another column), and some extend the privilege to long-established relationships, sometimes called "meritricious relationships," that had many characteristics of marriage (e.g., property ownership, shared assets, children) without the legal sanction."<BR/>http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p084.htm<BR/><BR/>So, I think you are trying to say that the only way to protect this dubious interest is by marriage. Not so.<BR/><BR/>>>>This privilege has NOTHING to do with children, cannot be conferred by contract, and according to the 14th Amendment is illegaly denied to homo couples by refusing to allow them to marry.<BR/><BR/>Myth.<BR/><BR/>And as to not relating to children, I don't see the interest that the state in this obstruction to justice otherwise.<BR/><BR/>The short story on the following is that these privileges are not gratuitous entitlements but ultimately tied to the care of children and the supporting family structure thereof:<BR/><BR/>*Privileged income tax status with the IRS<BR/>*Exemptions from estate and gift taxes<BR/>*Privileged estate trust options<BR/>*Automatic priority as conservator for end-of-life decisions and estate planning<BR/>*Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits<BR/>*Veterans' and military benefits<BR/>*Public assistance benefits<BR/>*Survivor's benefits under Worker's Comp law<BR/>*Less restricted visiting for hospitalized spouses<BR/>*Priority for consent for after-death examinations, procedures, funeral arrangements<BR/>*Priority for adoption or stepparent guardianship<BR/>*Housing benefits for local zoning oridances<BR/>*Contractual law benefits for renewing leases, etc.<BR/>*Improved rates for various private and semi-private commodities, including joint insurance, tuition, etc.<BR/>*Wrongful death standing for lawsuits<BR/>*Spousal standing for interference in the marriage<BR/>*Spousal privilege protections for confidential communications<BR/>*Crime victim's recovery benefits<BR/>*Immigration and residency benefits for spouse<BR/>*Visitation rights in penitetiaries, asylums, etc.<BR/><BR/>For example, what is the state's imperative interest in giving a tax deuction to childless couples? In fact, I believe the "marriage tax" is the name given to the HIGHER taxes childless couples pay on a combined income.<BR/><BR/>The rest we've already beat to death.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6530808017796585342007-10-03T11:18:00.000-04:002007-10-03T11:18:00.000-04:00And yes, I definitely did notice Bill's apparent b...And yes, I definitely did notice Bill's apparent bigotry. I tried to make sure to bring up his obvious homoantipathy several times in my comments. It probably did more to shorten my patience with him than his arguments.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56954576895205698552007-10-03T11:16:00.000-04:002007-10-03T11:16:00.000-04:00prup: I hope you'll believe that I meant homo and...prup: I hope you'll believe that I meant homo and hetero solely as shorthand for homosexual and heterosexual, and not in a perjorative sense. <BR/><BR/>The term "gay" is fine with me, but I have been told by some homosexual women that they do not think "gay" applies to women, and that they are properly termed "lesbians". In that case, "gay and lesbian" remains cumbersome, but I will try to either use that, and/or to refrain from using heterosexual and homosexual as nouns.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73673033285588078252007-10-03T10:48:00.000-04:002007-10-03T10:48:00.000-04:00Shygetz:Again thank you for your demolition of Mr....Shygetz:<BR/>Again thank you for your demolition of Mr. Ego. (Somewhere back a few dozen comments we had the potentialities for a good debate, but it got lost under his arrogant ignorance.)<BR/>Some minor points. Did you notice when -- in response to my comment about discrimination in housing and employment -- he denied that they existed, or that if they did that there were no legal remedies for it? (it's at his post at 2:54 October 1).<BR/><BR/>Did you notice how he began by using the idea of 'father's precedence' changed it to 'patristic' and, when he was called on it, changed the meaning he was using to refer to the "Fathers of the Constitution."<BR/><BR/>Did you catch his "I want to live free of the fear of dropping the soap.." comment in his post of 1:23 AM Oct 2?<BR/><BR/>And to you, I understand your usage of 'homo' as a contrast to 'hetero,' and ratinally I applaud it. But there is still an emotional twinge when I see it. It's not a 'death-word' like 'fag' (which I equate to 'nigger' and 'kike') but it is so frequewntly used as demeaning that I wish -- emotionally -- you'd come up with a better way of making the distinction.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34847290288692617052007-10-03T10:09:00.000-04:002007-10-03T10:09:00.000-04:00Hi Shygetz,I sure am glad you are on my side becau...Hi Shygetz,<BR/>I sure am glad you are on my side because sometimes your enthusiasm is fearsome.<BR/>;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20504012027046000102007-10-03T09:41:00.000-04:002007-10-03T09:41:00.000-04:00You have no idea what you are talking about. You ...You have no idea what you are talking about. You ask for specific legal prinicples, and cannot recognize it when I name one. You are beyond hopeless; you are silly. But, for the edification of the readers, I will explain.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege" REL="nofollow">"Spousal privilege"</A> is a specific legal term, not a generic term. It clearly states that communications between married partners cannot be used as evidence against one of those partners in court, and a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse. This privilege is suspended in cases of hostile spouses (divorce, child custody, domestic violence, etc.)<BR/><BR/>This privilege has NOTHING to do with children, cannot be conferred by contract, and according to the 14th Amendment is illegaly denied to homo couples by refusing to allow them to marry.<BR/><BR/>You other writings are crap. You demand a biological imperative, yet when the imperative of pair bonding is demonstrated, you state that it is not a "uinique" biological imperative, ignoring the fact that it is actually more unique that child birth (100% of animals engage in reproduction; relatively few engage in pair bonding). You also ignore the argument that pair bonding, not child rearing, is the driving biological principle behind US marriage laws as shown in the refusal to recognize polygamist unions.<BR/><BR/>You state that marriage exists because of the biological imperative to raise children, yet you refuse to defend the fact that couples who are physically incapable of bearing children allowed to marry without sanction or discrimination, a position which is at odds with your assertion. You further refuse to admit of the fact that homo couples engaged in child birth by <I>in vitro</I> are denied the same rights and privileges as hetero couples using <I>in vitro</I> solely based on sexual orientation.<BR/><BR/>You have ignorant arguments regarding the Constitution, even going so far as denying that it protects property (despite the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, among many other amendments and articles).<BR/><BR/>You have the unfortunate mixture of ignorance and arrogance. There is no unique biological imperative recognized in the marriage law--homos have children together and engage in pair bonds quite well, heteros marry without children quite commonly without sanction. As your bigotry requires that the law recognize a non-existent "unique" biological imperative that does not exist. the privileges it grants go FAR beyond mere child-rearing, such as:<BR/><BR/>*Privileged income tax status with the IRS<BR/>*Exemptions from estate and gift taxes<BR/>*Privileged estate trust options<BR/>*Automatic priority as conservator for end-of-life decisions and estate planning<BR/>*Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits<BR/>*Veterans' and military benefits<BR/>*Public assistance benefits<BR/>*Survivor's benefits under Worker's Comp law<BR/>*Less restricted visiting for hospitalized spouses<BR/>*Priority for consent for after-death examinations, procedures, funeral arrangements<BR/>*Priority for adoption or stepparent guardianship<BR/>*Housing benefits for local zoning oridances<BR/>*Contractual law benefits for renewing leases, etc.<BR/>*Improved rates for various private and semi-private commodities, including joint insurance, tuition, etc.<BR/>*Wrongful death standing for lawsuits<BR/>*Spousal standing for interference in the marriage<BR/>*Spousal privilege protections for confidential communications<BR/>*Crime victim's recovery benefits<BR/>*Immigration and residency benefits for spouse<BR/>*Visitation rights in penitetiaries, asylums, etc.<BR/><BR/>While you may (with some justification, I think) state that some of these legal and social privileges should not exist for anyone, stating that they should not exist for homos without appealing to something other than children is sheer bigotry. Most of these cannot be enacted by contract, and even if they could the presumption of benefit to hetero married couples sets up an unequal standing under the law, in violation of the 14th Amendment's guaruntees.<BR/><BR/>You lose.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66107451192639775002007-10-03T08:57:00.000-04:002007-10-03T08:57:00.000-04:00Actually, you did in fact introduce a new argument...Actually, you did in fact introduce a new argument. I looked up In Vitro law about paterntity and don't see how it could have any bearing on this issue, but invite you to set forth a reason:<BR/><BR/>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013424<BR/><BR/>I also don't think you have political marriage represented correctly. You say they were to fuse fortunes in a way that contract law cannot. If I'm not mistaken, the idea was that by intermingling their blood via common children their common interest would be secured for the coming generations. <BR/><BR/>But let's say you are right, that marriages were used for temporary political unity and that this right must be conferred equally on homosexuals. Well, what if three men, all blessed with the "double penetration gene" decide that they want to fuse their fortunes and they want to do so by marriage rather than contract. Then what interest is that of the government/society? But, if it is an entitlement for power purposes only, then who can forbid them the right? What responsibilities will the law recognize? If we move away from a minimalist and imperativist position, marriage laws become a free for all.<BR/><BR/>BillWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83996334311555185082007-10-03T02:31:00.000-04:002007-10-03T02:31:00.000-04:00>>So you claim that the 14th Amendment, which stat...>>So you claim that the 14th Amendment, which states in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", specifically does not include homosexuals? Where do you get off superceding the Constitution?<BR/><BR/>Shygetz, even though you are putting words into my mouth, I'm not going to tell you what I think of you for doing so. I will calmly report: YOU ARE STILL PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. Desist. I did not say that (and my words were clear, examples provided, etc,)that -- well, do I have to really repeat the whole thing? Show me where I said that the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals.<BR/><BR/>Show me. STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.<BR/><BR/>>>>For example, men are denied the use of public women's restrooms.<BR/>And yet workplaces are required to make similar accomidations for men and women's restrooms. If you were correct, they would not be required to do so.<BR/><BR/>No, the illustration stands. There are appropriate protections and provisions, not the same. Another example supplied was that of tax breaks for people with children that are not given to people without children. This illustration is clearly a privilege sancitoned by law.<BR/><BR/>>>>It would be if you stated homosexuals (or blacks, or Jews) with children were not allowed the same tax break.<BR/><BR/>WHICH I DID NOT SAY.<BR/><BR/>>>>>>>And yet you have not presented evidence that there is any biological imperative that is served by restricting marriage to heteros. As I pointed out, gay couples are guardians to children.<BR/><BR/>That comes under adoption laws and contract law.<BR/><BR/>>>>Untrue. The right to property is a positive right that is protected by the government via laws against theft, not a freedom. <BR/><BR/>Where is the "right to property" in the constitution? <BR/><BR/>>>>Similarly, the right to vote is a positive right (or entitlement, if you prefer) guaranteed by the Constitution. Those are just the ones in the Bill of Rights; there are others.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the right to vote is a positive right made in the constitution and is therefore a constitutional right. Conversely, when the constitution says that the government will not deprive people of their property without due process of law, it does not mean that it must give it to homosexuals, and to give it, they must take it from someone.<BR/><BR/>>>>But this is beside the point. The Constitution does not give ANYONE the right to marry; common law does. The Constitution merely states that common law must apply equally to all citizens (both immunities AND priveleges), which is applicable in this case.<BR/><BR/>It is difficult to discuss this point as despite my careful wording and giving examples of what I mean, you still misread it as "the amendment doesn't apply to homosexuals. You cannot seem to grasp the concept of the imperatives that drive due process. What to do? Where can this conversation go in such a situation? I guess I can point out that affirmative action laws are upheld as constitutional - do you think that they are not?<BR/><BR/>>>>Show me where the Constitution says heteros can marry?<BR/><BR/>By not expressly forbidding it, there is no ban against it. <BR/><BR/>>>>Not if, say, everyone but blacks are given a car to drive under the law. Apartheid of any kind doesn't fly in America under the 14th Amendment.<BR/><BR/>Are you against affirmative action on the basis of the 14th amendment? Tax breaks for parents of dependent children? <BR/><BR/>>>>There is a biological reason (stable homo family structure for adopted children)...<BR/><BR/>So are you saying that stable homo marriage is a biological justification for homo marriage? That unless the government says amen at a wedding service, adopted children will have unstable homes? That the government creates a stable home by saying "these to people are married?" And that this provides a "biological" imperative? What about a wedding ring? Should the government supply wedding rings? Will that keep the children safe?<BR/><BR/>>>>constitutional (equal protection under common law), and moral (equal rights; <BR/><BR/>Can you be more vague? This is a biological imperative?<BR/><BR/>>>>better family life for children). <BR/><BR/>"Better?" <BR/><BR/>>>>Patristic means pertaining to early Christian fathers, which has nothing to do with the US, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I was using the wrong word. I was using that as a shortcut to refer to the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution. "Original intent."<BR/><BR/>>>>Especially since you made these "imperatives" out of whole cloth, ignoring the tradition of marriage in English common law.<BR/><BR/>Are you now saying that marriage laws were made capriciously rather than from biological imperative? You were just arguing that marriage was a biological imperative?<BR/><BR/>>>>And yet, if they disallowed this tax break to blacks, or Jews, or gays, it would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.<BR/><BR/>If they gave this tax break to one who is not the biological or adoptive parent, regardless of race, etc, it would be an entitlement to a special interest group, depriving citizens of their property to do so, and would be unconstitutional.<BR/><BR/>>>These marriages were expressly NOT for the purpose of producing children, and were a common occurance, which directly refutres your assertion that marriage is for a biological imperative. It is a kind of social contract that is privileged by the government.<BR/><BR/>That marriage laws were exploited in other ways does not remove their raison d'etre, and in fact should suggest EXTREME CAUTION in wandering from a minimalist jurisprudence that could see new, unforseen societal abuses.<BR/><BR/>>>>...including spousal privilege, that have nothing to do with children.<BR/><BR/>Please be specific. What spousal privilege are you referring to and what is the compelling interest in the government of providing it? Thanks.<BR/><BR/>>>If that is the stance of the US legal system, then why do we allow parents to abandon their children to the state without censure?<BR/><BR/>Obviously the analogy breaks down because it was a metaphor, not real slavery. K?<BR/><BR/>>>>So couples without children should not be legally bound to their spouse until such time as they have children, and once those children are able to take care of themselves, their marriage should be rendered null. And yet, this is not what you advocate.<BR/><BR/>As I said, such laws are not perfect, but they are minimal in order to address biological realities. I think that we will see some interesting cases in the future with regard to the enslavement of women by muslims in this country in the coming days, as soon as someone gets a prosecutable case worked out. <BR/><BR/>>>And you are also wrong another way; pair bonding IS a biological process (including homosexual pair bonding). Homosexual lifetime pair bonding is observed in nature among other animals: there's your precious "biological imperative".<BR/><BR/>If it is a natural process, then why does it need a government entitlement to make it happen? Who is stopping the natural process? Why does society have an interest in recognizing it legally? Simply put, it doesn't. We are, hopefully, talking about consenting adults. They go to work, head to their shared bedroom, hang out in the Jacuzzi, cuddle, exchange fluids, they pick out a sofa together, pitch in... So? How is this comparable to the inherent responsibility and attending privilege of the biological parents or adoptive parents? They need to celebrated? Get friends. Government celebration laws, for the sake of celebration are unconstitutional.<BR/><BR/>>>>The responsibility is legal (and remember, we are discussing marriage as a legal proposition), and has a biological basis in child psychology and sociology (where it has been found that stable two-parent homosexual homes is preferable to single-parent homes). <BR/><BR/>Who is stopping anyone from doing this? <BR/><BR/>>>>Adoption law gives strong preference to married couples, which again brings up discrimination of homosexual couples in defiance of the 14th Amendment.<BR/><BR/>You are digressing.<BR/><BR/>>>>Then explain political marriages. Explain marriages used to seal contracts and consolidate fortures. Marriage has been a contract since ancient times, and a religious sacrement since Paul (which well predates the English common law upon which US law is based). <BR/><BR/>I would like you to explain to me what function you think the government has in a political marriage? <BR/><BR/>>>>Civil unions refers to a union recognized by the government as being similar (or identical in some cases) to marriage. As such, it CANNOT be addressed with contract law, as contracts do not have the right to compel the government to grant spousal priveleges to the partner.<BR/><BR/>Please be very specific.<BR/><BR/>>>>No, adoption is not required. The parent(s) may abandon their child to the state at any time, for any reason, without sanction or censure.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be being argumentative as I don't think you really believe that biological parents have inherent responsibility toward their children. The state clearly feels more compelled to protect the children than to sanction a parent. <BR/><BR/>>>>Let me state it more slowly so you can understand. They. Can. Abondon. Their. Child. At any time. For any reason. <BR/><BR/>Oh good grier, you are going there.<BR/><BR/>>>>Umm, sounds EXACTLY like one can simply shirk one's responsibility. Can I simply abandon my debts to the government with no sanction? No? So we have more responsibility to our debtors than to our children. Sorry, once again the facts have betrayed your bigotry.<BR/><BR/>I am quite amazed that you are arguing this way. I notice you got high fives for this drivel so I can't appeal to others to censure you...hmmm, what to do? Well, suffice it to say that if you simply stop feeding your children and head off to Vegas, you will find that the law does not hold you guiltless.<BR/><BR/>>>>Not always adoption; remember in vitro.<BR/><BR/>In that case, who do the courts consider the father?<BR/><BR/>>>>And yet, you state that the ONLY reason for marriage is to raise children, <BR/><BR/>NO. I DID NOT SAY THAT. What I said was that the imperative for marriage *laws* was the likelihood of the unique biological entanglement in the production of children.<BR/><BR/>>>>which is a guardian matter, not a marriage matter. Make up your mind; is marriage useful for raising children (in which case, why isn't it useful for homo couples raising children) or it isn't (in which case, why can heteros marry and not homos). You can't have it both ways, where it's essential for heteros but irrelevant for homos, without presenting evidence (or at least an argument) as to why this is so.<BR/><BR/>This is a very long post. Too long. And we are starting go rehash covered stuff and your arguments get weaker and weaker as we go along so I'm cutting off here and going to sleep. Goodnight.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23541976766047599982007-10-02T23:31:00.000-04:002007-10-02T23:31:00.000-04:00Excellent comments, Shygetz. Right on the money.Excellent comments, Shygetz. Right on the money.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36462638020606031872007-10-02T23:17:00.000-04:002007-10-02T23:17:00.000-04:00**privileges** are **special provisions** which no...<I>**privileges** are **special provisions** which not all people are entitled to equally, regardless of the 14th Amendment.</I><BR/><BR/>So you claim that the 14th Amendment, which states in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", specifically does not include homosexuals? Where do you get off superceding the Constitution?<BR/><BR/><I>For example, men are denied the use of public women's restrooms.</I><BR/><BR/>And yet workplaces are required to make similar accomidations for men and women's restrooms. If you were correct, they would not be required to do so.<BR/><BR/><I>So with <BR/><BR/>tax breaks for families with children. While it is compatible with equal protection, it is not uniform privilege.</I><BR/><BR/>It would be if you stated homosexuals (or blacks, or Jews) with children were not allowed the same tax break.<BR/><BR/><I>I did a search for "legal rights" and "spousal privilege" but did not find where you said anything about that. Can you repost? I did not see anything resembles an actual argument until your last post.</I><BR/><BR/>10:31 AM, Oct 1, next to last paragraph. If you don't see an argument there, it is because you choose to do so.<BR/><BR/><I>As I pointed out, equal protection is not about sameness when there are biological differences that create differing imperatives.</I><BR/><BR/>And yet you have not presented evidence that there is any biological imperative that is served by restricting marriage to heteros. As I pointed out, gay couples are guardians to children.<BR/><BR/><I>When you move from liberty to entitlement you abuse the constitution.</I><BR/><BR/>Untrue. The right to property is a positive right that is protected by the government via laws against theft, not a freedom. Similarly, the right to vote is a positive right (or entitlement, if you prefer) guaranteed by the Constitution. Those are just the ones in the Bill of Rights; there are others.<BR/><BR/>But this is beside the point. The Constitution does not give ANYONE the right to marry; common law does. The Constitution merely states that common law must apply equally to all citizens (both immunities AND priveleges), which is applicable in this case.<BR/><BR/>Show me where the Constitution says heteros can marry?<BR/><BR/><I>For example, you are granted the liberty to travel, but when you want the governemnt to give you a car or drive you around, you are abusing the Amendment.</I><BR/><BR/>Not if, say, everyone but blacks are given a car to drive under the law. Apartheid of any kind doesn't fly in America under the 14th Amendment.<BR/><BR/><I>Homosexual marriages are unfettered by the US <BR/><BR/>constitution TO THE DEGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ASKED TO ESTABLISH IT because it has no biological, constitutional, moral or patristic reason to do so.</I><BR/><BR/>There is a biological reason (stable homo family structure for adopted children), constitutional (equal protection under common law), and moral (equal rights; better family life for children). Patristic means pertaining to early Christian fathers, which has nothing to do with the US, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it.<BR/><BR/><I>The law is not contemplated as perfectly dispensing privileges in exact proportion at all times in perfect synergy with biological and moral imperatives.</I><BR/><BR/>Especially since you made these "imperatives" out of whole cloth, ignoring the tradition of marriage in English common law.<BR/><BR/><I>For example, tax breaks for parents with children are often not needed by the parents to adequately provide for those children. Everyone knows that and it is not begruged as giving to the rich (though I think that it is a flaw).</I><BR/><BR/>And yet, if they disallowed this tax break to blacks, or Jews, or gays, it would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.<BR/><BR/><I>Boy, they really wanted no escape! Were these gay marriages (aforementioned marriages of convenience)? If not then I suppose that the tradition, then, does not set precedent.</I><BR/><BR/>These marriages were expressly NOT for the purpose of producing children, and were a common occurance, which directly refutres your assertion that marriage is for a biological imperative. It is a kind of social contract that is privileged by the government.<BR/><BR/><I>Were the marriages forced on the children? Did they kill an animal? Anyway, we have contract law for this stuff.</I><BR/><BR/>What children? What animal? Have you lost your senses? And as I pointed out earlier, contract law does not provide all of the privileges conferred by the law, including spousal privilege, that have nothing to do with children.<BR/><BR/><I>Parents are the slaves of their children.</I><BR/><BR/>If that is the stance of the US legal system, then why do we allow parents to abandon their children to the state without censure?<BR/><BR/><I>What you propose is that we allow people to LEGALLY BIND themself to another adult person until death outside of biological processes. One so bound, if they wanted to renig would then be punished. I think this is inappropriate.</I><BR/><BR/>So couples without children should not be legally bound to their spouse until such time as they have children, and once those children are able to take care of themselves, their marriage should be rendered null. And yet, this is not what you advocate.<BR/><BR/>And you are also wrong another way; pair bonding IS a biological process (including homosexual pair bonding). Homosexual lifetime pair bonding is observed in nature among other animals: there's your precious "biological imperative".<BR/><BR/><I>But the responsibility is not intrinsic. Those laws come under the provisions of adoption and contract law.</I><BR/><BR/>The responsibility is legal (and remember, we are discussing marriage as a legal proposition), and has a biological basis in child psychology and sociology (where it has been found that stable two-parent homosexual homes is preferable to single-parent homes). Adoption law gives strong preference to married couples, which again brings up discrimination of homosexual couples in defiance of the 14th Amendment.<BR/><BR/><I>The reason they are called "marriages" and not "civil unions" is because they are addressing a biological phenomenon where two people are intermingled by a profound biological process.</I><BR/><BR/>Then explain political marriages. Explain marriages used to seal contracts and consolidate fortures. Marriage has been a contract since ancient times, and a religious sacrement since Paul (which well predates the English common law upon which US law is based). <BR/><BR/><I>"Civil Unions" (like living together, cuddling, doing the Hokey Pokey, etc) are personal matters which provide no imperative to the government that cannot be addressed with contract law.</I><BR/><BR/>Civil unions refers to a union recognized by the government as being similar (or identical in some cases) to marriage. As such, it CANNOT be addressed with contract law, as contracts do not have the right to compel the government to grant spousal priveleges to the partner.<BR/><BR/><I>There is existing provision in the law for adoption that relieves the parents of their legal responsibility to directly care for their own child...</I><BR/><BR/>No, adoption is not required. The parent(s) may abandon their child to the state at any time, for any reason, without sanction or censure.<BR/><BR/><I>...but it is not that the responsibility was never there, nor can they legally, morally, constitutionally simply fail to provide for their child, or knowingly entrust the child to someone who will not provide for their care.</I><BR/><BR/>Let me state it more slowly so you can understand. They. Can. Abondon. Their. Child. At any time. For any reason. <BR/><BR/><I>In other words, one cannot simply shirk one's responsibility.</I><BR/><BR/>Umm, sounds EXACTLY like one can simply shirk one's responsibility. Can I simply abandon my debts to the government with no sanction? No? So we have more responsibility to our debtors than to our children. Sorry, once again the facts have betrayed your bigotry.<BR/><BR/><I>That is an adoption matter, not a marriage matter.</I><BR/><BR/>Not always adoption; remember <I>in vitro</I>.<BR/><BR/>And yet, you state that the ONLY reason for marriage is to raise children, which is a guardian matter, not a marriage matter. Make up your mind; is marriage useful for raising children (in which case, why isn't it useful for homo couples raising children) or it isn't (in which case, why can heteros marry and not homos). You can't have it both ways, where it's essential for heteros but irrelevant for homos, without presenting evidence (or at least an argument) as to why this is so.<BR/><BR/><I>* we are not talking about specifics here, so this discussion is doomed</I><BR/><BR/>Fine, tell me exactly why only heteros are entitled to invoke spousal privilege.<BR/><BR/><I>* insurance policies allow you to name your beneficiaries, or can be reformed to do so</I><BR/><BR/>And yet unmarried beneficiaries do not have equal standing in probate court as married beneficiaries, perpetuating inequality.<BR/><BR/><I>* unncessary added financial burden on the government</I><BR/><BR/>So the dirty homos don't deserve your tax money, just the nice, clean heteros? Sorry, doesn't fly; freedom without equality isn't freedom.<BR/><BR/><I>Thanks for the book report. I have never read Ayn Rand.</I><BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand is an author, not a book. And for not having read her, you parrot her Objectivist crap, complete with irrational homoantipathy, very well. Perhaps it is a natural talent.<BR/><BR/><I>The bottom line is that marriage is a legitimate interest of the government marriage laws, while civil unions are not.</I><BR/><BR/>Marriage of homos is an equally legitimate interest and an imperative under application of the 14th Amendment to marriage laws. It exists to recognize and privilege pair bonds (which includes but is not limited to children), which are known to exist among homos. If this were not so, then marriage would be limited to fertile people who are engaged in child-bearing and raising, and would not be strictly limited to pairs (families based on polygamy are equally natural among primates, and historically occurred in human society). Civil unions can confer the same privileges as marriage without the religious history of the "sacrement". As such, I think for both practical and symbolic reasons that all marriages in America should be termed "civil unions" and open to all consenting adult couples, leaving the sacrement of marriage to non-governmental civic clubs, including (but not limited to) religions.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1486212184936130422007-10-02T17:08:00.000-04:002007-10-02T17:08:00.000-04:00>>>Bill Ross is ignoring my post because he hopes ...>>>Bill Ross is ignoring my post because he hopes everyone will forget that I brought up LEGAL rights enjoyed by <BR/><BR/>married couples that have nothing to do with children and cannot be conferred by contract. <BR/><BR/>**privileges** are **special provisions** which not all people are entitled to equally, regardless of the 14th <BR/><BR/>Amendment. These are tied to biological, constitutional, moral and patristic concerns. For example, men are denied <BR/><BR/>the use of public women's restrooms. This is not persecuting men or violating their constitutional rights. So with <BR/><BR/>tax breaks for families with children. While it is compatible with equal protection, it is not uniform privilege. <BR/><BR/>>>>The one I named was spousal privelege, but there are others. <BR/><BR/>I did a search for "legal rights" and "spousal privilege" but did not find where you said anything about that. Can <BR/><BR/>you repost? I did not see anything resembles an actual argument until your last post.<BR/><BR/>>>>How do you offer equal protection and equal privileges under the law without offering homosexual couples these <BR/><BR/>rights?<BR/><BR/>As I pointed out, equal protection is not about sameness when there are biological differences that create <BR/><BR/>differing imperatives.<BR/><BR/>>>>He also likes to set up the strawman that I said the 14th Amendment allows gay marriage. I said the 14th <BR/><BR/>Amendment requires equal privileges to homosexuals under the common law, and that the common law gives people the <BR/><BR/>right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.<BR/><BR/>The "right to" is about liberty. "Marry" is an establishment of something. Ie: the Bill or Rights confers freedom <BR/><BR/>of religion but does not permit the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. Homosexual marriages are unfettered by the US <BR/><BR/>constitution TO THE DEGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ASKED TO ESTABLISH IT because it has no biological, <BR/><BR/>constitutional, moral or patristic reason to do so. When you move from liberty to entitlement you abuse the <BR/><BR/>constitution. For example, you are granted the liberty to travel, but when you want the governemnt to give you a <BR/><BR/>car or drive you around, you are abusing the Amendment.<BR/><BR/>>>>He also likes to pretend that marriage arose to protect children, ignoring the fact that marriage under the law <BR/><BR/>has been available for infertile couples since before the founding of the nation. This unfortunate fact destroys <BR/><BR/>his argument that marriage exists solely for the protection of children likely to arise from such a union. <BR/><BR/>The law is not contemplated as perfectly dispensing privileges in exact proportion at all times in perfect synergy <BR/><BR/>with biological and moral imperatives. For example, tax breaks for parents with children are often not needed by <BR/><BR/>the parents to adequately provide for those children. Everyone knows that and it is not begruged as giving to the <BR/><BR/>rich (though I think that it is a flaw). You are creating a straw man of "the perfect system." I never said that <BR/><BR/>the system works perfectly as it is.<BR/><BR/>>>>He also ignores the tradition in both English common law and American history of marriages arranged to seal <BR/><BR/>political or financial contracts, having nothing to do with children.<BR/><BR/>Boy, they really wanted no escape! Were these gay marriages? If not then I suppose that the tradition, then, does <BR/><BR/>not set precedent. Were the marriages forced on the children? Did they kill an animal? Anyway, we have contract law <BR/><BR/>for this stuff.<BR/><BR/>>>>He also likes to ignore the fact that homosexual unions do bear children through adoption, in vitro <BR/><BR/>fertilization, and old-fashioned sex with men, and that these children deserve the same protection as other <BR/><BR/>children, again under the 14th Amendment. <BR/><BR/>Marriage laws (responsibilities and attendant privileges) are in recognition of an *inherent* responsibility to a <BR/><BR/>child. It is, in a sense, a kind of slave law, mandated by nature. Parents are the slaves of their children. To <BR/><BR/>*create* that master-slave relationship is unconstitutional. That is why contracts involving services have a term <BR/><BR/>limit and cannot be in perpetuity (whereas nature's dictum for parents is that it until they are capable of caring <BR/><BR/>for themselves, however long that may be). What you propose is that we allow people to LEGALLY BIND themself to <BR/><BR/>another adult person until death outside of biological processes. One so bound, if they wanted to renig would then <BR/><BR/>be punished. I think this is inappropriate.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>>Since marriage does nothing magical to the sperm or the egg, I assume that he means that marriage offers social <BR/><BR/>protection to children of the union; such protection would be just as important in homosexual unions.<BR/><BR/>But the responsibility is not intrinsic. Those laws come under the provisions of adoption and contract law.<BR/><BR/>>>>Bill Ross then deliberately misstates my argument and sets up this straw man:<BR/><BR/>I have never deliberately misstated your or any other person's position, though it has annoyingly been done to me <BR/><BR/>repeatedly - as you are doing here yet again. <BR/><BR/>***<BR/>>>>The person who advocated NO marriage laws falls into the other ditch. Children need protection, and the parents <BR/><BR/>are responsible to provide for children then produce. This is not a religious dogma. It is a biological situation <BR/><BR/>that we, the people, have to deal with.<BR/>***<BR/><BR/>>>>>I never advocated no laws surrounding unions of couples; I stated that they should not be called marriages due <BR/><BR/>to the religious connotations of the word. They should be called civil unions, and should be free to all consenting <BR/><BR/>adults. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Here is what you said, which I honestly mistakenly took as wanting no laws:<BR/><BR/>***<BR/>I fully agree; no marriage for anyone!<BR/>I'm serious; I am actually in favor of government getting out the marriage business altogether and only recognizing <BR/><BR/>civil unions. Marriage carries too many religious connotations, and should therefore be left to religious <BR/><BR/>institutions. But I seriously doubt that's what ego meant.<BR/>***<BR/><BR/>The reason they are called "marriages" and not "civil unions" is because they are addressing a biological <BR/><BR/>phenomenon where two people are intermingled by a profound biological process. "Civil Unions" (like living <BR/><BR/>together, cuddling, doing the Hokey Pokey, etc) are personal matters which provide no imperative to the government <BR/><BR/>that cannot be addressed with contract law.<BR/><BR/>>>>Similarly, you are factually incorrect that "the parents are responsible to provide for children they produce." <BR/><BR/>Under US jurisprudence, parents (both married and otherwise) can and do put children up for adoption, abandoning <BR/><BR/>all responsibilities for them, without penalty from the government. <BR/><BR/>There is existing provision in the law for adoption that relieves the parents of their legal responsibility to <BR/><BR/>directly care for their own child, but it is not that the responsibility was never there, nor can they legally, <BR/><BR/>morally, constitutionally simply fail to provide for their child, or knowingly entrust the child to someone who <BR/><BR/>will not provide for their care. In other words, one cannot simply shirk one's responsibility.<BR/><BR/>>>>And if I am wrong, then why should children of homosexual couples not be similarly protected? Remember, American <BR/><BR/>jurisprudence holds that the legal guardians hold the legal responsibility for the child, and the legal guardians <BR/><BR/>can easily be a homosexual couple.<BR/><BR/>That is an adoption matter, not a marriage matter.<BR/><BR/>>>>Bill Ross also shows his rampant homoantipathy in his comments. <BR/><BR/>I just like using colorful language whenever I get the chance! <BR/><BR/>>>>In doing so, he presents such interesting tidbits as his apparent support of governmental protection for heterosexual couples suffering from AIDS, but not homosexual couples (another clear violation of the 14th Amendment due to LEGAL priveleges, not contractual ones).<BR/><BR/>* we are not talking about specifics here, so this discussion is doomed<BR/>* insurance policies allow you to name your beneficiaries, or can be reformed to do so<BR/>* unncessary added financial burden on the government<BR/><BR/>>>>Bill, lots of people read Ayn Rand in high school and college, but most people get over her particular brand of <BR/><BR/>delusion by the time they turn 25. I will hold out hope for you.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the book report. I have never read Ayn Rand.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that marriage is a legitimate interest of the government marriage laws, while civil unions are not.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I may have overreacted a tad in some of my other posts might have been considered slightly rude. Sorry. Thanks for doing some actual argument.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22209145038522381842007-10-02T10:58:00.000-04:002007-10-02T10:58:00.000-04:00All I can say is to echo Joseph. Thanks, Shygetz....All I can say is to echo Joseph. Thanks, Shygetz.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65689712529495441962007-10-02T10:06:00.000-04:002007-10-02T10:06:00.000-04:00Great post Shygetz. Do you see a patter here in E...Great post Shygetz. Do you see a patter here in Ego's posts? "Ignore...Ignore...Ignore...Ignorance."Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3291231021894122872007-10-02T09:29:00.000-04:002007-10-02T09:29:00.000-04:00Bill Ross is ignoring my post because he hopes eve...Bill Ross is ignoring my post because he hopes everyone will forget that I brought up LEGAL rights enjoyed by married couples that have nothing to do with children and cannot be conferred by contract. The one I named was spousal privelege, but there are others. How do you offer equal protection and equal privileges under the law without offering homosexual couples these rights?<BR/><BR/>He also likes to set up the strawman that I said the 14th Amendment allows gay marriage. I said the 14th Amendment requires equal privileges to homosexuals under the common law, and that the common law gives people the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.<BR/><BR/>He also likes to pretend that marriage arose to protect children, ignoring the fact that marriage under the law has been available for infertile couples since before the founding of the nation. This unfortunate fact destroys his argument that marriage exists solely for the protection of children likely to arise from such a union. He also ignores the tradition in both English common law and American history of marriages arranged to seal political or financial contracts, having nothing to do with children.<BR/><BR/>He also likes to ignore the fact that homosexual unions do bear children through adoption, <I>in vitro</I> fertilization, and old-fashioned sex with men, and that these children deserve the same protection as other children, again under the 14th Amendment. Since marriage does nothing magical to the sperm or the egg, I assume that he means that marriage offers social protection to children of the union; such protection would be just as important in homosexual unions.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross then deliberately misstates my argument and sets up this straw man:<BR/><I>The person who advocated NO marriage laws falls into the other ditch. Children need protection, and the parents are responsible to provide for children then produce. This is not a religious dogma. It is a biological situation that we, the people, have to deal with.</I><BR/><BR/>I never advocated no laws surrounding unions of couples; I stated that they should not be called marriages due to the religious connotations of the word. They should be called civil unions, and should be free to all consenting adults. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, you are factually incorrect that "the parents are responsible to provide for children then produce." Under US jurisprudence, parents (both married and otherwise) can and do put children up for adoption, abandoning all responsibilities for them, without penalty from the government. And if I am wrong, then why should children of homosexual couples not be similarly protected? Remember, American jurisprudence holds that the legal guardians hold the legal responsibility for the child, and the legal guardians can easily be a homosexual couple.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross also shows his rampant homoantipathy in his comments. In doing so, he presents such interesting tidbits as his apparent support of governmental protection for heterosexual couples suffering from AIDS, but not homosexual couples (another clear violation of the 14th Amendment due to LEGAL priveleges, not contractual ones).<BR/><BR/>Bill, lots of people read Ayn Rand in high school and college, but most people get over her particular brand of delusion by the time they turn 25. I will hold out hope for you.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50517363360212009632007-10-02T01:23:00.000-04:002007-10-02T01:23:00.000-04:00>>>>...You were quite clear in saying that dying o...>>>>...You were quite clear in saying that dying of AIDS is all but inevitable for "a homosexual's lover," and if they get married watch out insurance companies! <BR/><BR/>Ummm... if I said so, please show me where. Why (the fucK) do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I never said that. <BR/><BR/>>>>Ego: "Joseph, the problem with AIDS is that it is a MILLION DOLLAR DEATH." So, show me where you get your figures from. <BR/><BR/>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DEEDA103BF936A3575BC0A961948260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FL%2FLife%20Insurance<BR/><BR/>>>>How does it compare with the expense of other deaths like cancer and heart disease? Why is one acceptable for insurance to cover and not the other? What should we do with you if you got AIDS? Would you want us to shoot you?<BR/><BR/>Prolly.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>>Bullshit. That's your criteria and you're sputtering it like a mindless parakeet. <BR/><BR/>What is your criteria for jurisprudence?<BR/><BR/>>>>I've already shown that constitutionally, gay civil unions/marriages are sound. <BR/><BR/>Oh yeah, the 14th Amendment. But SPECIFICALLY...<BR/><BR/>>>>Morally, it's a no-brainer (unless you're appealing to the Bible). <BR/><BR/>I'm not appealing to the Bible. Show me the moral imperative. And in particular, show me how it is equivalent to the moral imperative involved with the biological production of children.<BR/><BR/>>>>Biologically, scientific research is bringing us closer to answers about homosexuality that you wouldn't like. <BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that new research reveals that swishing around sperm in a ruptured sphincter produces an emnbryo? Because if you aren't, then your scientific research is irrelevant to the current discussion.<BR/><BR/>>>>And pratristicly, who gives a flying leap? <BR/><BR/>Um.... the Supreme Court?<BR/><BR/>>>By the way, look up patristic in the dictionary: "Of or relating to the fathers of the early Christian church or their writings" (American Heritage Dictionary). <BR/><BR/>! Ok, so you have no appreciation of context... I am referring to the fathers of the Constitituion - routinely considered in the interpretation of Constitutional jurisprudence.<BR/><BR/>>>>Ego, "I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become." Straw man, Bill, straw man. LOL<BR/><BR/>Hey - you are developing a bit of a sense of humor!<BR/><BR/>>>>Egoa, "After all, jurisprudence is not about awarding favors to people, but is intended to prevent the will of special interest groups from controlling the populace." Yeah, right. I think you're just afraid of dropping the soap. <BR/><BR/>I want to live free of the fear of dropping the soap..<BR/><BR/>>>>You are incapable of carrying out an intelligent argument. Go back to the radio and memorize some more lines from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing like a good insult to really give an argument a solid edge...<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23594106284936780742007-10-02T01:22:00.000-04:002007-10-02T01:22:00.000-04:00Thanks, Prup. As of my last comment, I'm done with...Thanks, Prup. As of my last comment, I'm done with Ego (hopefully for good). There's still that naive side of me that wants to believe in the best of human nature. Maybe that's why I humor people like Ego and Dan more than I should. <BR/><BR/>Now, on to bigger and brighter things. <BR/><BR/>Peace.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15186241787489008932007-10-02T01:14:00.000-04:002007-10-02T01:14:00.000-04:00Joseph:Why do we continue to waste time on this bi...Joseph:<BR/>Why do we continue to waste time on this bigoted fool. I was going to say something like "It ain't the things you don't know that hurt you, but the things you know that ain't so." But why bother?<BR/><BR/>If we shut up, Mr. Ego will be convinced he vanquished us with his brilliant arguments. So what. Everyone who reads this will see him for the bigoted fool he is, and we'll stop wasting bandwith trying to show him how little he knows.<BR/><BR/>And maybe he'll actually shut up and go away.<BR/><BR/>Or at least we can take him on on some topic more relevant to DC.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65282550873055827732007-10-01T22:53:00.000-04:002007-10-01T22:53:00.000-04:00Ego: "So once again you are L-E-A-P-I-N-G to concl...Ego: "So once again you are L-E-A-P-I-N-G to conclusions, putting words in my mouth and erecting straw man arguments."<BR/><BR/>You mean these words, don't you? "...a homosexual's lover IF and WHEN they succumb to AIDS?" [my emphasis] That is what you said, isn't it? You were quite clear in saying that dying of AIDS is all but inevitable for "a homosexual's lover," and if they get married watch out insurance companies! <BR/><BR/>Ego: "Joseph, the problem with AIDS is that it is a MILLION DOLLAR DEATH." So, show me where you get your figures from. How does it compare with the expense of other deaths like cancer and heart disease? Why is one acceptable for insurance to cover and not the other? What should we do with you if you got AIDS? Would you want us to shoot you?<BR/><BR/>"But with no biological, constitutional, moral or patristic basis, I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become." <BR/><BR/>Bullshit. That's your criteria and you're sputtering it like a mindless parakeet. I've already shown that constitutionally, gay civil unions/marriages are sound. Morally, it's a no-brainer (unless you're appealing to the Bible). Biologically, scientific research is bringing us closer to answers about homosexuality that you wouldn't like. And pratristicly, who gives a flying leap? <BR/><BR/>By the way, look up patristic in the dictionary: "Of or relating to the fathers of the early Christian church or their writings" (American Heritage Dictionary). <BR/><BR/>Ego, "I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become." <BR/><BR/>Straw man, Bill, straw man. LOL<BR/><BR/>Ego, "After all, jurisprudence is not about awarding favors to people, but is intended to prevent the will of special interest groups from controlling the populace." <BR/><BR/>Yeah, right. I think you're just afraid of dropping the soap. <BR/><BR/>You are incapable of carrying out an intelligent argument. Go back to the radio and memorize some more lines from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87936969053796776302007-10-01T22:35:00.000-04:002007-10-01T22:35:00.000-04:00Joseph, the problem with AIDS is that it is a MILL...Joseph, the problem with AIDS is that it is a MILLION DOLLAR DEATH. When AIDS hit, hundreds of insurance companies went out of business because EACH CASE was a million dollars (compare that to a car accident). So once again you are L-E-A-P-I-N-G to conclusions, putting words in my mouth and erecting straw man arguments.<BR/><BR/>>>>What the 14th amendment DOES safeguard is life, liberty, and property rights for ALL AMERICANS. <BR/><BR/>Exactly. That is YOUR and MY constitutional protection. But you want my million dollars to go to the live-in lover of someone I never agreed to care for. I am being made to vouchsafe someone who is NOT a child and personally I resent it. On what grounds am I biologically, constitutionally, morally or patristically responsible to care for your lover? The 14th Amendment? No frickin' way.<BR/><BR/>>>>We are a democratic republic that vote representatives to create new laws, precisely so that the laws of a given city, county, state will reflect the will of the people. If the will of the people is gay marriage/civil unions--so be it! That's the constitutional way<BR/><BR/>Well, sort of. It turns out that it is really not that kind of a free for all. We do have a Consitutional government. Indeed, if the will of the people is to change the constitution, then by golly that has to happen, if you get it by the courts. But with no biological, constitutional, moral or patristic basis, I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become. After all, jurisprudence is not about awarding favors to people, but is intended to prevent the will of special interest groups from controlling the populace. Gay marriage laws are not biologically, constitutionally, morally or patristically imperative and so are not the minimal amount of government that we need and therefore ought not to be cast as the law of the land/sea.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21267994574695450792007-10-01T22:16:00.000-04:002007-10-01T22:16:00.000-04:00"The potential loss of one's home from illness OR ..."The potential loss of one's home from illness OR FROM FIRE is a serious one. The question is, does the US government (ie: the taxpayer) have a biological, constitutional, moral or patristic imperative to vouchsafe the interests of a homosexual's lover if and when they succumb to AIDS?"<BR/><BR/>Uh, gee, I suppose it's found in the same place where we vouchsafe a heterosexual couple when they face similar issues. <BR/><BR/>BTW, since your outlandish homophobia indicates you're still mentally ensconced in the early 1980's when AIDS was considered a gay disease, check out what Wikipedia says about the AIDS issue: "Those most likely to hold misconceptions about HIV transmission and to harbor HIV/AIDS stigma are LESS EDUCATED PEOPLE and people with high levels of religiosity or conservative political ideology" [emphasis mine]. In other words, it is a myth that AIDS is the inevitable fate of a gay man or woman.<BR/><BR/>"In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed an estimated 2.4–3.3 million lives, of which more than 570,000 were children." What do you propose we do with all those infected children, Bill? Should we ask them if they engaged in homosexual behavior before we decide to extend the hand of human compassion?<BR/><BR/>Here, educate yourself a little, please: <BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS <BR/>http://www.aids.gov/<BR/>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ego said, "Where in the fourteenth amendment do you read this?"<BR/><BR/>Where in the 14th Amendment does it say anything about marriage, at all, Bill? (More education awaits at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<BR/>Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_<BR/>Constitution) What the 14th amendment DOES safeguard is life, liberty, and property rights for ALL AMERICANS. <BR/><BR/>And, BTW, there's a reason why we have volumes of additional laws in this country. If you speed in a school zone tomorrow and get pulled over by a cop, good luck in getting off the hook by arguing from the constitution! We are a democratic republic that vote representatives to create new laws, precisely so that the laws of a given city, county, state will reflect the will of the people. If the will of the people is gay marriage/civil unions--so be it! That's the constitutional way.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25273937463110026972007-10-01T21:52:00.000-04:002007-10-01T21:52:00.000-04:00>>>*Potential loss of couple's home from medical e...>>>*Potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one.<BR/><BR/>The potential loss of one's home from illness OR FROM FIRE is a serious one. The question is, does the US government (ie: the taxpayer) have a biological, constitutional, moral or patristic imperative to vouchsafe the interests of a homosexual's lover if and when they succumb to AIDS? Where in the fourteenth amendment do you read this?<BR/><BR/>Ditto for the rest of you drivel.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52943119811603164092007-10-01T21:37:00.000-04:002007-10-01T21:37:00.000-04:00According to the same article, same-sex couples fa...According to the same article, same-sex couples face "financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:<BR/><BR/>*Potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one.<BR/> <BR/>*Costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the US for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen. <BR/><BR/>*Higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits.<BR/><BR/>*Higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation. <BR/><BR/>*Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage. <BR/><BR/>*Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples.<BR/><BR/>*Current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner.<BR/><BR/>*Same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower taxes via the marriage bonus."<BR/><BR/><BR/>As you can see, it's about a whole lot more than just feeling good and wanting to be accepted (your original straw man argument, thus soundly refuted).Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.com