Gay rights law foes must pay court

AP via The Washington Times ^ | November 1, 2001 | Tom Stuckey, AP

[FormerLib]

ANNAPOLIS

[FormerLib]

"It is why so many Christians defied the Nazis and harbored Jews in World War II Europe."

(Was that a flame or an ad hominem?)

Neither. It appears to be an attempt to correct a flaw in the logic of a previous statement.

[Antoninus]

The idea that (wo)men should be able to marry other (wo)men has NO precedence anywhere in Western Civilization. It is a preposterous idea that should never be given the force of law anywhere and should be forbidden everywhere. Even though religious leaders are at the forefront of this debate, is not a purely religious issue. It is a common sense issue. It's time to end this insanity.

[Skooz]

Otherwise, those who challeneged the validity of the signatures should pay. Otherwise, anytime a petition is taken to get a ballot initiative, someone could just challenege the validity of the signatures hoping the cost will be too heavy for the petitioners.

Excellent point. And one that conveniently eludes the "whats-wrong-with-gay-marriage-dont-ram-your-morality-down-our-throats" crowd.

[Khepera]

Remember God said Thou Shalt not murder. it is amazing how many people I have to remind of this 1 simple commandment.

[FormerLib]

"But I'll wager that you could talk for hours as to what the definition of "is" is!"

(Was that a flame or an ad hominem?)

Neither. It was an observation based on the fact that your debating technique reminds me of someone else who had a problem with straight (no pun intended) answers.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You're wrong on this to a degree.

Western Civilization is partially based on Ancient Roman Civilization. Which was very pro-homosexual.

For example, on how Western Civilization is partially based on Ancient Roman Civilization, the T-Shirt is basically a modern day version of the Ancient Roman Tunic.

[OBAFGKM]

"Common sense should tell you that that is 1 MALE and 1 FEMALE. Words may be twisted in a court of law by attorneys ... but you and I and everyone watching this thread knows what is meant by 1 man and 1 woman. Your challenge makes you look ridiculous."

Humor me: Give us a good definition that's more substantive than substituting one word for another. Once more, I beg you, no flames or ad hominems. It's an honest challenge.

You might be interested in consulting Male & Female" before composing a reply.

[RLK]

This is part of an attempt to make suits against imposed support of countercultural concepts of sexuality to costly to be conducted.

[OBAFGKM]

"They broke our laws, but not necessarily those of their state(s). God's law (according to the Bible) clearly states "Thou shalt not kill.""

An objective reading of the Bible and of the history of Jewish, Christian, & Muslim nations suggests that God allows a lot of leeway in admonishing us not to kill.

Your World War II example is a perfect red herring because it does nothing to address the assertion that the terrorists acted out of religious conviction.

[RLK]

Revise that statement to read "too costly and difficult to be conducted." It is an act of indirect legal prohibittion.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Good point.

But think about this.

By the way, I used and altered one your sentences. I hope you don't mind.

One crowd screams "whats-wrong-with-gay-marriage-don't-ram-your-morality-down-our-throats"

And the other crowd screams "whats-wrong-with-morality-don't-ram-your-gay-marriage-down-our-throats"

Does anyone else see a strange polar similarities to the views of these two groups.

[Khepera]

You understood what I meant when I said what I said. The homosexual community is good at twisting words but I will not be duped into accepting lies for truth. The truth is known by both of us and your denile is not going to change anything. Redefining words to mean things they do not is Satin's best skill. Satin trades truth for lies so that you will receive death instead of life. No amount of trickery will change the truth. We know what the meaning is and need no further explanation. Your beginning to look foolish to those around you that have not been deceived.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Skooz makes a good point.

If you don't like "Thou shalt not kill.""

Then how about "Thou shalt not take thy Lord's name in vain."

Isn't doing evil in the name of God, taking thy Lord's name in vain.

[FormerLib]

Humor me: Give us a good definition that's more substantive than substituting one word for another.

Not until you defend your position for refusing to allow the people to speak via the ballot.

[FormerLib]

An objective reading of the Bible and of the history of Jewish, Christian, & Muslim nations suggests that God allows a lot of leeway in admonishing us not to kill.

That's because the Bible (in Hebrew and in the original Greek translations) condemns murder, the killing of an innocent. What you are referring to is where God pronounces the sentence of death for crimes (ie. no longer innocent).

So, what is your definition of "is?"

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

You might be interested in consulting Male & Female" before composing a reply.

are you kidding me? democrats.com is calling you . . .

[OBAFGKM]

"Neither. It was an observation based on the fact that your debating technique reminds me of someone else who had a problem with straight (no pun intended) answers."

Oh come on and 'fess up. It was both. ;-)

Truly though, there are way over 100,000 U.S. citizens whose biological sex could be either male or female depending on what medical test was being administered. For example, the 2000 Olympics dropped sex testing because they were embarrassed after the 1996 Olympics disqualified several female atheletes who subsequently gave birth to healthy babies.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

Who can intersex people marry?

We do not know of any case that established the eligibility for a marriage license when one or both of the partners is intersexed. Since most intersex people live as unambiguously male or unambiguously female, we doubt that their legal standing is much different from that of non-intersex people who are unambiguously gendered. We do not know of any precedence regarding how the court would interpret the prohibition against same-sex marriage when the intersex person is also transgender or has transitioned genders. Eventually, it will take the lifting of restrictions on marriage to make sure that all intersex people are treated equally under the law.

I'd hate to be judgemental but . . .

[Skooz]

I never said the terrorists did not act out of religious conviction when they committed their grisly deeds. I merely pointed out the fallacy of post #20.

Isn't this precisely the sort of reasoning that recently led to unfortunate incidents in New York & Arlington

The answer is no. To extrapolate that those who wish to bring the gay marriage law to a vote are acting under a conviction no different than the loonies who murdered 6000 people is a breathtaking leap in pseudo-logic. It will not wash.

My answer was an example that, on those rare occasions when we must disregard man's law in favor of the laws of God, we ALWAYS do so out of mercy and in pursuit of peace. It's called love. So, my example of Christians saving Jews in WW II is precisely the point. Those who obey God's law will do good, not kill innocents. Got it yet? No red herring here.

The correct translation is actually "Thou shalt not commit murder." That should clear up the "leeway" issue.

[OBAFGKM]

"You understood what I meant when I said what I said."

Right. But that doesn't make you correct and it doesn't address the question. Have you looked at that link I gave you, yet? It's pretty enlightening.