Gay Rights?....Where?...Do We Classify Rights By Sexual Desire Now?

[Tracey12]

As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

They already have the US Constitution.

Thats all non homosexuals have.

Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

So they can spout homophobic rhetoric on the radio?

Aaron Hirshberg

[Umberto Ramirez]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

So they can spout homophobic rhetoric on the radio?
Aaron Hirshberg

Homosexuals need more rights so they can spout homophobic rhetoric?

That makes no sense.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Umberto Ramirez

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

So they can spout homophobic rhetoric on the radio?
Aaron Hirshberg

Homosexuals need more rights so they can spout homophobic rhetoric?
That makes no sense.

You are extremely naive. Openly homophobic Rush Limbaugh and Michael
Savage are both gay.

Aaron Hirshberg

[MFOgilvie]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

So they can spout homophobic rhetoric on the radio?

No such thing.

[James McGill]

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is required in
order to bring them into an equitable position.

That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.

However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.

Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it is an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.

But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root of the
issue, in my opinion.

[SeaWoe]

Post by James McGill

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is required in
order to bring them into an equitable position.
That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.
However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.
Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it is an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.
But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root of the
issue, in my opinion.

Now, that makes sense!
For being legallly hitched, sign a contract.
To make religious relatives happy, see a preacher.

[The Cunning Linguist]

Post by SeaWoe

Post by James McGill

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is required in
order to bring them into an equitable position.
That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.
However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.
Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it is an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.
But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root of the
issue, in my opinion.

Now, that makes sense!
For being legallly hitched, sign a contract.
To make religious relatives happy, see a preacher.

Gay marriage has more to do with acceptance of homosexuality rather than
allowance of same sex marriage. BTW, in regardss to marraige, homosexuals
and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights. I, a male, can marry any
female I desire as can a homosexual.

[Anlatt the Builder]

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by SeaWoe

Post by James McGill

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is required in
order to bring them into an equitable position.
That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.
However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.
Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it is an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.
But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root of the
issue, in my opinion.

Now, that makes sense!
For being legallly hitched, sign a contract.
To make religious relatives happy, see a preacher.

Gay marriage has more to do with acceptance of homosexuality rather than
allowance of same sex marriage. BTW, in regardss to marraige, homosexuals
and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights. I, a male, can marry any
female I desire as can a homosexual.

Interestingly, this is EXACTLY what was said to defend the laws
against interracial marriage. A white man has exactly the same rights
as a black man - each of them can marry someone of their own race, and
cannot marry someone of a different race. That's equality, right?

(It's worth noting that the other "defenses" for these laws included
quotes from the Bible, a deep concern for family values, an insistance
that interracial marriage was "unnatural," and an appeal to long-
standing tradition. Sound familiar?)

The Supreme Court didn't buy it, though. The obvious and manifest
denial of equality towards interracial couples was too great to be
explained away with sematics and sophistry. But aren't we all so lucky
that the same dumb arguments can be trotted out again, this time to
deny equality to gays!

It's funny to listen to people say that gays shouldn't be allowed to
get married, because the "ideal relationship is between a man and a
woman," and allowing less than the ideal would be bad for society.
Then they tell gay men that, after all, they can always marry a woman.
Do you think that a marriage between a gay man and a straight woman,
entered into because of prejudice against gays, is "ideal"? For
society? For the man? For the woman?

[The Cunning Linguist]

Post by Anlatt the Builder

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by SeaWoe

Post by James McGill

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is required in
order to bring them into an equitable position.
That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.
However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.
Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it is an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.
But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root of the
issue, in my opinion.

Now, that makes sense!
For being legallly hitched, sign a contract.
To make religious relatives happy, see a preacher.

Gay marriage has more to do with acceptance of homosexuality rather than
allowance of same sex marriage. BTW, in regardss to marraige, homosexuals
and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights. I, a male, can marry any
female I desire as can a homosexual.

Interestingly, this is EXACTLY what was said to defend the laws
against interracial marriage. A white man has exactly the same rights
as a black man - each of them can marry someone of their own race, and
cannot marry someone of a different race. That's equality, right?

OK, I'll play your silly logic games. Alright, are you ready? So you're
suggesting that blacks are homosexual.

Racial discrimination has absolutely no connection with homosexual marriage.
In fact, most black Americans are offended with an attempt to connect
discrimination with homosexual activity.

Post by Anlatt the Builder
(It's worth noting that the other "defenses" for these laws included
quotes from the Bible, a deep concern for family values, an insistance
that interracial marriage was "unnatural," and an appeal to long-
standing tradition. Sound familiar?)

The heterosexual family is the cornerstone of civilization as we know it.
Our culture of the last forty years is evidence of what the deteriation of
family does to our society.

Post by Anlatt the Builder
The Supreme Court didn't buy it, though. The obvious and manifest
denial of equality towards interracial couples was too great to be
explained away with sematics and sophistry. But aren't we all so lucky
that the same dumb arguments can be trotted out again, this time to
deny equality to gays!

The two issues are entirely different. In the case of marriage - every man
or woman has exactly the same right.

Post by Anlatt the Builder
It's funny to listen to people say that gays shouldn't be allowed to
get married, because the "ideal relationship is between a man and a
woman," and allowing less than the ideal would be bad for society.
Then they tell gay men that, after all, they can always marry a woman.
Do you think that a marriage between a gay man and a straight woman,
entered into because of prejudice against gays, is "ideal"? For
society? For the man? For the woman?

I never said gays shouldn't be allowed to marry; they, as I, can marry. If
I agreed they shouldn't marry then (by your arguement) that would make me
guilty of discrimination.

[Anlatt the Builder]

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by SeaWoe

Post by James McGill

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is required in
order to bring them into an equitable position.
That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.
However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.
Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it is an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.
But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root of the
issue, in my opinion.

Now, that makes sense!
For being legallly hitched, sign a contract.
To make religious relatives happy, see a preacher.

Gay marriage has more to do with acceptance of homosexuality rather than
allowance of same sex marriage. BTW, in regardss to marraige, homosexuals
and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights. I, a male, can marry any
female I desire as can a homosexual.

Interestingly, this is EXACTLY what was said to defend the laws
against interracial marriage. A white man has exactly the same rights
as a black man - each of them can marry someone of their own race, and
cannot marry someone of a different race. That's equality, right?

OK, I'll play your silly logic games. Alright, are you ready? So you're
suggesting that blacks are homosexual.
Racial discrimination has absolutely no connection with homosexual marriage.
In fact, most black Americans are offended with an attempt to connect
discrimination with homosexual activity.

But, of course, regardless of your misreading, I didn't say that
blacks are homosexuals. I said that the same logic that was used to
deny interracial couples the right to marry is now being used the deny
gays the right to marry. Two arguments can be logically identical
without each part of the first argument being identical to the
corresponding part of the second argument. And the logic you use to
deny gays the right to marry each other - hey, gay men can marry
women, just like straight men can marry women! - is exactly the same
as the logic that was used to deny interracial couples: hey, black men
can marry women of their own race just like white men can marry women
of their own race!

If you think that my making the comparison between the two arguments
is "the same as saying blacks are gay," then logic is not your strong
suit.

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder
(It's worth noting that the other "defenses" for these laws included
quotes from the Bible, a deep concern for family values, an insistance
that interracial marriage was "unnatural," and an appeal to long-
standing tradition. Sound familiar?)

The heterosexual family is the cornerstone of civilization as we know it.
Our culture of the last forty years is evidence of what the deteriation of
family does to our society.

The deterioration of the family has to do with people with kids who
divorce too casually, economic that pressures both parents to work
long hours and have no time for their children, alcohol and drug
abuse, and domestic violence. Not letting gays marry will not solve a
single one of those problems. You are focusing your resources and your
"logic" on a non-problem.

Another problem for families is that people get pregnant and have
children when they do not have the physical, psychological, or
spiritual resources to properly care for them. Couples get pregnant by
accident, or "because it's the thing to do," whether they're prepared
or not. However, this is only a problem for heterosexual couples. Gay
couples don't have children by accident, or without a great deal of
forethought. When they do have children - by adoption, a surrogate, or
some other method - it's because they have examined the question and
decided they really, really want to raise a kid, and are ready to do
so. Unwanted children is a heterosexual problem; you won't solve it by
not letting gays get married.

Letting gays get married does not harm any family. However, preventing
them from getting married - and discriminating against them in general
- often prompts men to deny (even to themselves) that they're gay,
pretend they're striaght, and marry women that they don't truly love.
Such marriages frequently fall apart badly, causing heartache to
everyone involved, including the kids. Is that what you want? It's the
obvious consequence of your position.

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder
The Supreme Court didn't buy it, though. The obvious and manifest
denial of equality towards interracial couples was too great to be
explained away with sematics and sophistry. But aren't we all so lucky
that the same dumb arguments can be trotted out again, this time to
deny equality to gays!

The two issues are entirely different. In the case of marriage - every man
or woman has exactly the same right.

But not every person has the same right. Bob has the right to marry
Alice. Carol does not have the right to marry Alice. Carol does not
have the same rights as Bob. (She has other rights that Bob doesn't
have - the right to marry Dave - but she would like to have the same
rights as Bob, thank you very much.) The Constitution grants each
PERSON equal rights - not some rights for men and different rights for
women.

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder
It's funny to listen to people say that gays shouldn't be allowed to
get married, because the "ideal relationship is between a man and a
woman," and allowing less than the ideal would be bad for society.
Then they tell gay men that, after all, they can always marry a woman.
Do you think that a marriage between a gay man and a straight woman,
entered into because of prejudice against gays, is "ideal"? For
society? For the man? For the woman?

I never said gays shouldn't be allowed to marry; they, as I, can marry. If
I agreed they shouldn't marry then (by your arguement) that would make me
guilty of discrimination.

If you would let a straight couple get married, and not let a gay
couple get married, then you are guilty of discrimination against the
gay couple. Anybody not trying to make excuses for their anti-gay
bigotry can see that clearly.

[The Cunning Linguist]

Post by Anlatt the Builder

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by SeaWoe

Post by James McGill

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is
required
in
order to bring them into an equitable position.
That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.
However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.
Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it
is
an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.
But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root
of
the
issue, in my opinion.

Now, that makes sense!
For being legallly hitched, sign a contract.
To make religious relatives happy, see a preacher.

Gay marriage has more to do with acceptance of homosexuality rather than
allowance of same sex marriage. BTW, in regardss to marraige, homosexuals
and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights. I, a male, can marry any
female I desire as can a homosexual.

Interestingly, this is EXACTLY what was said to defend the laws
against interracial marriage. A white man has exactly the same rights
as a black man - each of them can marry someone of their own race, and
cannot marry someone of a different race. That's equality, right?

OK, I'll play your silly logic games. Alright, are you ready? So you're
suggesting that blacks are homosexual.
Racial discrimination has absolutely no connection with homosexual marriage.
In fact, most black Americans are offended with an attempt to connect
discrimination with homosexual activity.

But, of course, regardless of your misreading, I didn't say that
blacks are homosexuals. I said that the same logic that was used to
deny interracial couples the right to marry is now being used the deny
gays the right to marry.

I'm quite aware of what you said and that is why I applied your logic when I
made my statement. It's easy to state one hting applies to another even
when it doesn't.

Two arguments can be logically identical

Post by Anlatt the Builder
without each part of the first argument being identical to the
corresponding part of the second argument. And the logic you use to
deny gays the right to marry each other - hey, gay men can marry
women, just like straight men can marry women! - is exactly the same
as the logic that was used to deny interracial couples: hey, black men
can marry women of their own race just like white men can marry women
of their own race!

So, you wish to change the definition of marriage. Wow, that sure can open
a can of worms.

Post by Anlatt the Builder
If you think that my making the comparison between the two arguments
is "the same as saying blacks are gay," then logic is not your strong
suit.

No, I didn't, I just used your linking to irrelevent topics together to come
to your preconceived conclusion.

Post by Anlatt the Builder

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder
(It's worth noting that the other "defenses" for these laws included
quotes from the Bible, a deep concern for family values, an insistance
that interracial marriage was "unnatural," and an appeal to long-
standing tradition. Sound familiar?)

The heterosexual family is the cornerstone of civilization as we know it.
Our culture of the last forty years is evidence of what the deteriation of
family does to our society.

The deterioration of the family has to do with people with kids who
divorce too casually, economic that pressures both parents to work
long hours and have no time for their children, alcohol and drug
abuse, and domestic violence.

I agree but the prevelence for casual divorce, economic pressures, both
parents working long hours, alcohol, drug abuse and domestic violence is due
primarily to do for yourself culture which has gotten us into this mess.
Further self indulgence will hardly make it any better.

Not letting gays marry will not solve a

Post by Anlatt the Builder
single one of those problems. You are focusing your resources and your
"logic" on a non-problem.

You're right, it won't solve any problems but it will sure cause a lot more.

Post by Anlatt the Builder
Another problem for families is that people get pregnant and have
children when they do not have the physical, psychological, or
spiritual resources to properly care for them. Couples get pregnant by
accident, or "because it's the thing to do," whether they're prepared
or not. other social problems

That's a problem which has been with us since the dawn of man. What hasn't
been with us is the high teen pregnancy and the rest of the out of control
social ills which have poluted our culture. Yes, complex problems and
possibly no real answers other than a colapse of our society to be rebuilt
later. Adding another social ill is hardly going to correct anything.

However, this is only a problem for heterosexual couples. Gay

Post by Anlatt the Builder
couples don't have children by accident, or without a great deal of
forethought. When they do have children - by adoption, a surrogate, or
some other method - it's because they have examined the question and
decided they really, really want to raise a kid, and are ready to do
so. Unwanted children is a heterosexual problem; you won't solve it by
not letting gays get married.

True. Very simplistic and naive but true.

Post by Anlatt the Builder
Letting gays get married does not harm any family. However, preventing
them from getting married - and discriminating against them in general
- often prompts men to deny (even to themselves) that they're gay,
pretend they're striaght, and marry women that they don't truly love.
Such marriages frequently fall apart badly, causing heartache to
everyone involved, including the kids. Is what you want? It's the
obvious consequence of your position.

First of all it is not any more discrimination than being against men
marrying animals, children or barn doors (and no, I'mm not making a
connection with anything). Your reasoning is like trying to convince me
that Jeffrey Dahmer was not a murderer but a artist.

Post by Anlatt the Builder

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder
The Supreme Court didn't buy it, though. The obvious and manifest
denial of equality towards interracial couples was too great to be
explained away with sematics and sophistry. But aren't we all so lucky
that the same dumb arguments can be trotted out again, this time to
deny equality to gays!

The two issues are entirely different. In the case of marriage - every man
or woman has exactly the same right.

But not every person has the same right. Bob has the right to marry
Alice. Carol does not have the right to marry Alice. Carol does not
have the same rights as Bob. (She has other rights that Bob doesn't
have - the right to marry Dave - but she would like to have the same
rights as Bob, thank you very much.) The Constitution grants each
PERSON equal rights - not some rights for men and different rights for
women.

And I can't marry Jim, so what is the problem?

Post by Anlatt the Builder

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Anlatt the Builder
It's funny to listen to people say that gays shouldn't be allowed to
get married, because the "ideal relationship is between a man and a
woman," and allowing less than the ideal would be bad for society.
Then they tell gay men that, after all, they can always marry a woman.
Do you think that a marriage between a gay man and a straight woman,
entered into because of prejudice against gays, is "ideal"? For
society? For the man? For the woman?

I never said gays shouldn't be allowed to marry; they, as I, can marry.
If
I agreed they shouldn't marry then (by your arguement) that would make me
guilty of discrimination.

If you would let a straight couple get married, and not let a gay
couple get married, then you are guilty of discrimination against the
gay couple. Anybody not trying to make excuses for their anti-gay
bigotry can see that clearly.

You know that's a lot like calling a white person a racist because they
condemned a guilty black person. Is it discrimination to not allow an
underage person to drink or drive or go to an X rated movie?

You know, it would be refreshing to hear someone with your position to just
admit, and argue the point, that your real reason is that you want to change
the definition of marriage. This is not an issue of prejudice but an
attempt to alter society and that alteration, I feel, is not good.

[SeaWoe]

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by SeaWoe

Post by James McGill

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

The idea is that their rights are diminished, and action is required in
order to bring them into an equitable position.
That's not my position; where I live, I do not observe gays enjoying
diminished or abridged rights.
However, I do have a rather unconventional position on the Marriage
thing. I think marriage should not elevate rights. That is, there
should be no State interest in marriage. Joint ownership of property
should be done via enforceable contracts (no benefit or impairment
because of marital status), child custody should be based solely on
biological grounds, but the state should not be a party in the
establishment of "marriage" per se. A person should be allowed to put
his dependents on healthcare programs with no respect to marital status.
Fix that kind of stuff, and the problems of "gay marriage" and
"polygamy" would no longer be issues in which the state has any
interest. They should be purely social constructs. Getting married
should not *confer* elevated rights, as it does today, because it is an
institution of the state. I have a problem with this on equal
protection grounds.
But gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., aren't at the root of the
issue, in my opinion.

Now, that makes sense!
For being legallly hitched, sign a contract.
To make religious relatives happy, see a preacher.

Gay marriage has more to do with acceptance of homosexuality rather than
allowance of same sex marriage. BTW, in regardss to marraige, homosexuals
and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights. I, a male, can marry any
female I desire as can a homosexual.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Cute, hardly original, joke that does not really add anything but
tracks of tired electrons to the discussion.

[j***@hotmail.com]

Homosexuality is an abomination before God and according to the Bible
ALL homosexuals are to be executed.

Yeshua went on the cross and shed his most precious blood for their
sins just as he did everybody else's. The price for our sin was
Yeshua's death on that cross that is the message we should be sending
to the gay community.

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james

[Pmb]

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is an abomination before God and according to the Bible
ALL homosexuals are to be executed.

That's Old Testament. If you're a Christian then you follow what is in the
New Testament and that doesn't mean killing anyone. Recall the instance
where a crowd was to stone a woman for adultery as scripture dictated. Jesus
stepped in and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua went on the cross and shed his most precious blood for their
sins just as he did everybody else's. The price for our sin was
Yeshua's death on that cross that is the message we should be sending
to the gay community.

You mean the Christian gay community right? Gay atheists are not concerned
with sin.

Pete

[j***@hotmail.com]

Post by Pmb

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is an abomination before God and according to the Bible
ALL homosexuals are to be executed.

That's Old Testament. If you're a Christian then you follow what is in the
New Testament and that doesn't mean killing anyone. Recall the instance
where a crowd was to stone a woman for adultery as scripture dictated. Jesus
stepped in and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua went on the cross and shed his most precious blood for their
sins just as he did everybody else's. The price for our sin was
Yeshua's death on that cross that is the message we should be sending
to the gay community.

You mean the Christian gay community right? Gay atheists are not concerned
with sin.
Pete

The Old Testament tells us what constitutes sin. Homosexuality is a
sin.
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven. There never was any such personage as Jesus. He never
existed. The Lord's name was changed to protect the guilty.

A person cannot be a quote Christian and be a homosexual. A person
cannot be living in sin and still go to Heaven. The wages of sin is
Hell and to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. It takes a blood
sacrifice to cleanse a person of their sin. Yeshua's blood sacrifice
is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. None other will do. No amount of
good works or no amount of money paid to a church. A person can be a
good person, go to church every Sunday, do all kinds of good deeds and
still go to Hell.

It is ONLY by the BLOOD of Yeshua that we are sanctified Holy before
our Heavenly Father and are able to enter into His presence as one of
His children.

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james

[Pmb]

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Pmb

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is an abomination before God and according to the Bible
ALL homosexuals are to be executed.

That's Old Testament. If you're a Christian then you follow what is in the
New Testament and that doesn't mean killing anyone. Recall the instance
where a crowd was to stone a woman for adultery as scripture dictated. Jesus
stepped in and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua went on the cross and shed his most precious blood for their
sins just as he did everybody else's. The price for our sin was
Yeshua's death on that cross that is the message we should be sending
to the gay community.

You mean the Christian gay community right? Gay atheists are not concerned
with sin.
Pete

The Old Testament tells us what constitutes sin.

I agree. But it is the New Testament that tells us what to do about those
who break those laws. At least in principle. In society today we simply
can't do what the Old Testament tells us to do with people who sin.

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven. There never was any such personage as Jesus.

And yet you post in a newsgroup called alt.religion.christian??????

Then I guess this conversation is over.

Pete

[j***@hotmail.com]

Post by Pmb

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Pmb

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is an abomination before God and according to the Bible
ALL homosexuals are to be executed.

That's Old Testament. If you're a Christian then you follow what is in the
New Testament and that doesn't mean killing anyone. Recall the instance
where a crowd was to stone a woman for adultery as scripture dictated. Jesus
stepped in and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua went on the cross and shed his most precious blood for their
sins just as he did everybody else's. The price for our sin was
Yeshua's death on that cross that is the message we should be sending
to the gay community.

You mean the Christian gay community right? Gay atheists are not concerned
with sin.
Pete

The Old Testament tells us what constitutes sin.

I agree. But it is the New Testament that tells us what to do about those
who break those laws. At least in principle. In society today we simply
can't do what the Old Testament tells us to do with people who sin.

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven. There never was any such personage as Jesus.

And yet you post in a newsgroup called alt.religion.christian??????
Then I guess this conversation is over.
Pete

The word Christian literally means a follower of Christ does it not?
(Or the Messiah in Hebrew)

A Messianic Believer is one who follows the Jewish Messiah Yeshua
HaMashiac, the Lord's true Hebrew name given him by our Heavenly
Father. So what is the difference?

The price for our sin is a blood sacrifice? Correct??? In the old
Testament the people were instructed how to prepare the different
sacrifices and which sacrifice was acceptable and which were not.
Correct?

Now the Good News is that the Lord Yeshua HaMashiac's blood sacrifice
is the only acceptable blood sacrifice for the atonement for ALL sin.
That includes homosexuality. He paid the price for our sins so we DO
NOT have to.

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Pmb

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is an abomination before God and according to the Bible
ALL homosexuals are to be executed.

That's Old Testament. If you're a Christian then you follow what is in the
New Testament and that doesn't mean killing anyone. Recall the instance
where a crowd was to stone a woman for adultery as scripture dictated. Jesus
stepped in and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua went on the cross and shed his most precious blood for their
sins just as he did everybody else's. The price for our sin was
Yeshua's death on that cross that is the message we should be sending
to the gay community.

You mean the Christian gay community right? Gay atheists are not concerned
with sin.
Pete

The Old Testament tells us what constitutes sin.

Where does it do that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.

How do you know?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven.

You know the mind of God?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
There never was any such personage as Jesus. He never
existed. The Lord's name was changed to protect the guilty.

You actually believe that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
A person cannot be a quote Christian and be a homosexual. A person
cannot be living in sin and still go to Heaven.

What do you think 'sin' is? What do you think that the forst
Christians thought it was?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
The wages of sin is
Hell

Actually, they are death. However you may define 'death'. Some living
people are 'dead', you know....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
and to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. It takes a blood
sacrifice to cleanse a person of their sin. Yeshua's blood sacrifice
is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. None other will do. No amount of
good works or no amount of money paid to a church. A person can be a
good person, go to church every Sunday, do all kinds of good deeds and
still go to Hell.

Er...St. Paul didn't think that. Read Romans...

Post by j***@hotmail.com
It is ONLY by the BLOOD of Yeshua that we are sanctified Holy before
our Heavenly Father and are able to enter into His presence as one of
His children.

You aren't a Christian, are you?

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[j***@hotmail.com]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Where does it do that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.

How do you know?

Leviticus 20:13 says that when a man lieth (has sex) with another man
as he would a woman it is an abomination before the Lord and they are
to be put to death.

Also read Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which
pertineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven.

You know the mind of God?

I should I talk with him all of the time and He talks with me. Isaiah
1:18; Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
There never was any such personage as Jesus. He never
existed. The Lord's name was changed to protect the guilty.

You actually believe that?

Check out the Strong's Concordance 2424 you will find that the Lords
given or Hebrew name is Yeshua not Jesus.
Iesous was the Greek work for Tammuz the only begotten son of the sun
god Baal in accent Babylon.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
A person cannot be a quote Christian and be a homosexual. A person
cannot be living in sin and still go to Heaven.

What do you think 'sin' is? What do you think that the forst
Christians thought it was?

Sin is the direct disobedience of God. When God speaks to us and we
refuse to do what he tells us to do that is sin. God told Adam that he
was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam committed sin when he
disobeyed God and he ate of the fruit. The sin was not in the eating
of the fruit but in disobeying what God had told he not to do.

We have got to remember that the quote First Church didn't have the
New Testament because it had not been written yet. The New Testament
wasn't even established until the year 310 AD or 310 years after
Yeshua's death and resurrection. Just as with the quote First Church
we too must rely totally and completely upon what God tells us to do
and stop listening to the false teachings of men.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
The wages of sin is
Hell

Actually, they are death. However you may define 'death'. Some living
people are 'dead', you know....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
and to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. It takes a blood
sacrifice to cleanse a person of their sin. Yeshua's blood sacrifice
is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. None other will do. No amount of
good works or no amount of money paid to a church. A person can be a
good person, go to church every Sunday, do all kinds of good deeds and
still go to Hell.

Er...St. Paul didn't think that. Read Romans...

The Great I AM says Paul is his father's son and he like his father
Satan is a liar.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
It is ONLY by the BLOOD of Yeshua that we are sanctified Holy before
our Heavenly Father and are able to enter into His presence as one of
His children.

You aren't a Christian, are you?

The word Christian literally means a follower of Christ or in the
Hebrew the Messiah. So yes I am a Christian because I am a brother of
the Jewish Messiah Yeshua HaMashiach. I Am one with my Heavenly Father
as my Heavenly Father is one with me. I am also one with his only
begotten son Yeshua HaMashiach as Yeshua is one with me. Furthermore
I am also one with all of the other Saints who are also one with my
Heavenly Father and our Brother Yeshua HaMashiach and we are all one
in the Holy Spirit of God the Father Almighty.
Dr. Barry Worthington the question I put to you is this. Are you one
with the Father who is in Heaven and do you also know what his voice
sounds like? Yeshua said that he knows his sheep by name and they know
his voice. Do you know his voice and do you talk with him? Yeshua also
said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Are you listening to Gods words
coming from God's mouth? Do you know his voice and do you do what God
tells you to do? Do you lay hands on the sick and see then healed
immediately? Do the unclean spirits flee before you? Do you take
authority over the unclean spirits and cast them out of people? I do
and so do many other like me.

If your answer is no. Than my suggestion to you is to REPENT of your
sins, ask God to forgive you your sins, get baptized in water and then
ask God for his Holy Spirit. Your fancy title and you education cannot
save you. If anything they have condemned you.

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Where does it do that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.

How do you know?

Leviticus 20:13 says that when a man lieth (has sex) with another man
as he would a woman it is an abomination before the Lord and they are
to be put to death.
Also read Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which
for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Why should a Christian pay any notice to the Pentateuch?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven.

You know the mind of God?

I should I talk with him all of the time and He talks with me. Isaiah
1:18; Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4

And that, in Pauline theology, transcends scripture. Or haven't you
realised this?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
There never was any such personage as Jesus. He never
existed. The Lord's name was changed to protect the guilty.

You actually believe that?

Check out the Strong's Concordance 2424 you will find that the Lords
given or Hebrew name is Yeshua not Jesus.

Yes, and this became Jesus. So what?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Iesous was the Greek work for Tammuz the only begotten son of the sun
god Baal in accent Babylon.

Rubbish! Do you really think the earliest authors of the gospels
thought that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
A person cannot be a quote Christian and be a homosexual. A person
cannot be living in sin and still go to Heaven.

What do you think 'sin' is? What do you think that the forst
Christians thought it was?

Sin is the direct disobedience of God. When God speaks to us and we
refuse to do what he tells us to do that is sin. God told Adam that he
was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam committed sin when he
disobeyed God and he ate of the fruit. The sin was not in the eating
of the fruit but in disobeying what God had told he not to do.

Sin is the state of turning away from God....a form of spiritual
death. That is wahat 'original sin' or 'birth sin' means.

Post by j***@hotmail.com
We have got to remember that the quote First Church didn't have the
New Testament because it had not been written yet. The New Testament
wasn't even established until the year 310 AD or 310 years after
Yeshua's death and resurrection. Just as with the quote First Church
we too must rely totally and completely upon what God tells us to do
and stop listening to the false teachings of men.

Exactly so. What has this to do with Leviticus, then?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
The wages of sin is
Hell

Actually, they are death. However you may define 'death'. Some living
people are 'dead', you know....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
and to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. It takes a blood
sacrifice to cleanse a person of their sin. Yeshua's blood sacrifice
is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. None other will do. No amount of
good works or no amount of money paid to a church. A person can be a
good person, go to church every Sunday, do all kinds of good deeds and
still go to Hell.

Er...St. Paul didn't think that. Read Romans...

The Great I AM says Paul is his father's son and he like his father
Satan is a liar.

St. Paul says (in Romans) that a pagan may be justified before a
Christian.

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
It is ONLY by the BLOOD of Yeshua that we are sanctified Holy before
our Heavenly Father and are able to enter into His presence as one of
His children.

You aren't a Christian, are you?

The word Christian literally means a follower of Christ or in the
Hebrew the Messiah. So yes I am a Christian because I am a brother of
the Jewish Messiah Yeshua HaMashiach.

Brother?????

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I Am one with my Heavenly Father
as my Heavenly Father is one with me.

You can say that you are in a state of grace?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I am also one with his only
begotten son Yeshua HaMashiach as Yeshua is one with me. Furthermore
I am also one with all of the other Saints who are also one with my
Heavenly Father and our Brother Yeshua HaMashiach and we are all one
in the Holy Spirit of God the Father Almighty.

And what does all that imply?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Dr.BarryWorthingtonthe question I put to you is this. Are you one
with the Father who is in Heaven and do you also know what his voice
sounds like? Yeshua said that he knows his sheep by name and they know
his voice. Do you know his voice and do you talk with him?

That would be my desire, but I would not presume to know God's will. I
just do what my poor conscience tells me. That is all that most of us
can hope for, in my opinion.

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua also
said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Are you listening to Gods words
coming from God's mouth? Do you know his voice and do you do what God
tells you to do? Do you lay hands on the sick and see then healed
immediately? Do the unclean spirits flee before you? Do you take
authority over the unclean spirits and cast them out of people? I do
and so do many other like me.

You do? If you are so full of grace, why do you then seem to damn a
part of God's creation? I don't understand how you can do that. And
don't say the Old Testament. In your seeming state, you have
transcended such things....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
If your answer is no. Than my suggestion to you is to REPENT of your
sins, ask God to forgive you your sins, get baptized in water and then
ask God for his Holy Spirit. Your fancy title and you education cannot
save you. If anything they have condemned you.

Why should an education condemn me?

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[SeaWoe]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Where does it do that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.

How do you know?

Leviticus 20:13 says that when a man lieth (has sex) with another man
as he would a woman it is an abomination before the Lord and they are
to be put to death.
Also read Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which
for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Why should a Christian pay any notice to the Pentateuch?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven.

You know the mind of God?

I should I talk with him all of the time and He talks with me. Isaiah
1:18; Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4

And that, in Pauline theology, transcends scripture. Or haven't you
realised this?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
There never was any such personage as Jesus. He never
existed. The Lord's name was changed to protect the guilty.

You actually believe that?

Check out the Strong's Concordance 2424 you will find that the Lords
given or Hebrew name is Yeshua not Jesus.

Yes, and this became Jesus. So what?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Iesous was the Greek work for Tammuz the only begotten son of the sun
god Baal in accent Babylon.

Rubbish! Do you really think the earliest authors of the gospels
thought that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
A person cannot be a quote Christian and be a homosexual. A person
cannot be living in sin and still go to Heaven.

What do you think 'sin' is? What do you think that the forst
Christians thought it was?

Sin is the direct disobedience of God. When God speaks to us and we
refuse to do what he tells us to do that is sin. God told Adam that he
was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam committed sin when he
disobeyed God and he ate of the fruit. The sin was not in the eating
of the fruit but in disobeying what God had told he not to do.

Sin is the state of turning away from God....a form of spiritual
death. That is wahat 'original sin' or 'birth sin' means.

Post by j***@hotmail.com
We have got to remember that the quote First Church didn't have the
New Testament because it had not been written yet. The New Testament
wasn't even established until the year 310 AD or 310 years after
Yeshua's death and resurrection. Just as with the quote First Church
we too must rely totally and completely upon what God tells us to do
and stop listening to the false teachings of men.

Exactly so. What has this to do with Leviticus, then?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
The wages of sin is
Hell

Actually, they are death. However you may define 'death'. Some living
people are 'dead', you know....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
and to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. It takes a blood
sacrifice to cleanse a person of their sin. Yeshua's blood sacrifice
is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. None other will do. No amount of
good works or no amount of money paid to a church. A person can be a
good person, go to church every Sunday, do all kinds of good deeds and
still go to Hell.

Er...St. Paul didn't think that. Read Romans...

The Great I AM says Paul is his father's son and he like his father
Satan is a liar.

St. Paul says (in Romans) that a pagan may be justified before a
Christian.

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
It is ONLY by the BLOOD of Yeshua that we are sanctified Holy before
our Heavenly Father and are able to enter into His presence as one of
His children.

You aren't a Christian, are you?

The word Christian literally means a follower of Christ or in the
Hebrew the Messiah. So yes I am a Christian because I am a brother of
the Jewish Messiah Yeshua HaMashiach.

Brother?????

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I Am one with my Heavenly Father
as my Heavenly Father is one with me.

You can say that you are in a state of grace?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I am also one with his only
begotten son Yeshua HaMashiach as Yeshua is one with me. Furthermore
I am also one with all of the other Saints who are also one with my
Heavenly Father and our Brother Yeshua HaMashiach and we are all one
in the Holy Spirit of God the Father Almighty.

And what does all that imply?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Dr.BarryWorthingtonthe question I put to you is this. Are you one
with the Father who is in Heaven and do you also know what his voice
sounds like? Yeshua said that he knows his sheep by name and they know
his voice. Do you know his voice and do you talk with him?

That would be my desire, but I would not presume to know God's will. I
just do what my poor conscience tells me. That is all that most of us
can hope for, in my opinion.

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua also
said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Are you listening to Gods words
coming from God's mouth? Do you know his voice and do you do what God
tells you to do? Do you lay hands on the sick and see then healed
immediately? Do the unclean spirits flee before you? Do you take
authority over the unclean spirits and cast them out of people? I do
and so do many other like me.

You do? If you are so full of grace, why do you then seem to damn a
part of God's creation? I don't understand how you can do that. And
don't say the Old Testament. In your seeming state, you have
transcended such things....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
If your answer is no. Than my suggestion to you is to REPENT of your
sins, ask God to forgive you your sins, get baptized in water and then
ask God for his Holy Spirit. Your fancy title and you education cannot
save you. If anything they have condemned you.

Why should an education condemn me?
Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I've often thought that for someone God had created as a homosexual to
have sex with someone of the opposite sex would be an unnatural act.

[j***@hotmail.com]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Where does it do that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.

How do you know?

Leviticus 20:13 says that when a man lieth (has sex) with another man
as he would a woman it is an abomination before the Lord and they are
to be put to death.
Also read Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which
for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Why should a Christian pay any notice to the Pentateuch?

Because it tells us what pleases our Heavenly Father and what
displeases and why it displeases Him. Or to put it into layman terms
what is sin and why it is considered a sin.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven.

You know the mind of God?

I should I talk with him all of the time and He talks with me. Isaiah
1:18; Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4

And that, in Pauline theology, transcends scripture. Or haven't you
realised this?

The Lord Yeshua said that not one jot nor one tittle shall be removed
from the laws Right? The laws have been fulfilled by Yeshua HaMashiach
but they have not been rendered useless. They are still there to tell
us what constitutes a sin. So whom are you going to believe the Lord
Yeshua HaMashiach or Paul?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
There never was any such personage as Jesus. He never
existed. The Lord's name was changed to protect the guilty.

You actually believe that?

Check out the Strong's Concordance 2424 you will find that the Lords
given or Hebrew name is Yeshua not Jesus.

Yes, and this became Jesus. So what?

No it doesn't it becomes Iesous or the Greek word for Tammuz the only
begotten son of the pagan sun god Baal.
The word Jesus did not come into use until the 14th Century.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Iesous was the Greek work for Tammuz the only begotten son of the sun
god Baal in accent Babylon.

Rubbish! Do you really think the earliest authors of the gospels
thought that?

There is no Greek word for Yeshua HaMashiach so they chose the next
closes thing to it. Check out the Old Testament and you will notice
that Yeshua is translated in to the Greek and then into English as
Joshua not Jesus as in the New Testament. There is no agreement. Many
of the 4th century Roman scholars did not have access to a Torah so
they would not have know that. Oh yea the first attempt at gathering
together the scriptures happened around 310 AD then they were
translated from Greek into Latin which were later translated in the
14th century into English. Not only that but none and I do mean none
of the original Hebrew scripture were added to the collection. Only
those written in Greek because the Roman scholars could only read and
understand Greek and could not read or understand Hebrew. The Dead Sea
Scrolls prove that there were many scriptures written in the Original
Hebrew that were not included in what we now know as the New
Testament.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
A person cannot be a quote Christian and be a homosexual. A person
cannot be living in sin and still go to Heaven.

What do you think 'sin' is? What do you think that the forst
Christians thought it was?

Sin is the direct disobedience of God. When God speaks to us and we
refuse to do what he tells us to do that is sin. God told Adam that he
was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam committed sin when he
disobeyed God and he ate of the fruit. The sin was not in the eating
of the fruit but in disobeying what God had told he not to do.

Sin is the state of turning away from God....a form of spiritual
death. That is wahat 'original sin' or 'birth sin' means.

How can someone turn away for God if they never knew him in the first
place? The original sin was when Adam disobeyed what God told him to
do. God said and Adam did it anyway.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
We have got to remember that the quote First Church didn't have the
New Testament because it had not been written yet. The New Testament
wasn't even established until the year 310 AD or 310 years after
Yeshua's death and resurrection. Just as with the quote First Church
we too must rely totally and completely upon what God tells us to do
and stop listening to the false teachings of men.

Exactly so. What has this to do with Leviticus, then?

That is all they had was the Old Testament and the Laws.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
The wages of sin is
Hell

Actually, they are death. However you may define 'death'. Some living
people are 'dead', you know....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
and to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. It takes a blood
sacrifice to cleanse a person of their sin. Yeshua's blood sacrifice
is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. None other will do. No amount of
good works or no amount of money paid to a church. A person can be a
good person, go to church every Sunday, do all kinds of good deeds and
still go to Hell.

Er...St. Paul didn't think that. Read Romans...

The Great I AM says Paul is his father's son and he like his father
Satan is a liar.

St. Paul says (in Romans) that a pagan may be justified before a
Christian.

Again who are you going to believe Paul or the Lord Yeshua HaMashiach?
Paul like his Father Satan is a liar.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
It is ONLY by the BLOOD of Yeshua that we are sanctified Holy before
our Heavenly Father and are able to enter into His presence as one of
His children.

You aren't a Christian, are you?

The word Christian literally means a follower of Christ or in the
Hebrew the Messiah. So yes I am a Christian because I am a brother of
the Jewish Messiah Yeshua HaMashiach.

Brother?????

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I Am one with my Heavenly Father
as my Heavenly Father is one with me.

You can say that you are in a state of grace?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I am also one with his only
begotten son Yeshua HaMashiach as Yeshua is one with me. Furthermore
I am also one with all of the other Saints who are also one with my
Heavenly Father and our Brother Yeshua HaMashiach and we are all one
in the Holy Spirit of God the Father Almighty.

And what does all that imply?

It implies that anyone who is not One with the father Son and the
Saints has no part in Him and they have damned themselves.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Dr.BarryWorthingtonthe question I put to you is this. Are you one
with the Father who is in Heaven and do you also know what his voice
sounds like? Yeshua said that he knows his sheep by name and they know
his voice. Do you know his voice and do you talk with him?

That would be my desire, but I would not presume to know God's will. I
just do what my poor conscience tells me. That is all that most of us
can hope for, in my opinion.

Then how on Earth can you possibly know what God's will is if you
cannot hear Him talking to you personally one on one? When you were a
child you knew exactly what your earthly parents expected of you.
Right? How by reading a book and hoping? No You listened to what they
told you? What makes you think it is any different with your Heavenly
Father?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua also
said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Are you listening to Gods words
coming from God's mouth? Do you know his voice and do you do what God
tells you to do? Do you lay hands on the sick and see then healed
immediately? Do the unclean spirits flee before you? Do you take
authority over the unclean spirits and cast them out of people? I do
and so do many other like me.

You do? If you are so full of grace, why do you then seem to damn a
part of God's creation? I don't understand how you can do that. And
don't say the Old Testament. In your seeming state, you have
transcended such things....

I condemn no man for they have already condemned themselves all I am
able to do is show them the light of their salvation.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
If your answer is no. Than my suggestion to you is to REPENT of your
sins, ask God to forgive you your sins, get baptized in water and then
ask God for his Holy Spirit. Your fancy title and you education cannot
save you. If anything they have condemned you.

Why should an education condemn me?

Because of your education you cannot hear the voice of the Lord God
Almighty talking to you. You are relying on your education and not
listening for God speaking to you.

All sinners no matter what their sin whether it be homosexuality or
adultery or religiosity have condemned themselves neither any man nor
has God condemned them. For they have condemned themselves. For God so
Loved the sinners that He sent His only begotten Son Yeshua not to
condemn the sinners but that through is blood sacrifice the sinners
might be delivered from their sin.

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james-Hide quoted text -

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Where does it do that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is a
sin.

How do you know?

Leviticus 20:13 says that when a man lieth (has sex) with another man
as he would a woman it is an abomination before the Lord and they are
to be put to death.
Also read Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which
for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Why should a Christian pay any notice to the Pentateuch?

Because it tells us what pleases our Heavenly Father and what
displeases and why it displeases Him. Or to put it into layman terms
what is sin and why it is considered a sin.

'It' tells us no such thing. The majority of Christians believe that
it is superceeded or transcended, if you like, by the Gospel of Christ
- the New Covenant.

You do not adhere to its dietary laws, public health regulations, or
purification and sacrificial rituals. So what makes you think that the
rest of it has any relevance?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua HaMashiac is the Hebrew name given the Lord by his Father in
Heaven.

You know the mind of God?

I should I talk with him all of the time and He talks with me. Isaiah
1:18; Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4

And that, in Pauline theology, transcends scripture. Or haven't you
realised this?

The Lord Yeshua said that not one jot nor one tittle shall be removed
from the laws Right?

That is usually taken to be the intention of 'law', not its nuts and
bolts. It echoes the views of Gamaliel and similar writers of the
time....thinkers that Saul/Paul would be familiar with....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
The laws have been fulfilled by Yeshua HaMashiach
but they have not been rendered useless.

That is not the conventional theological view.

Post by j***@hotmail.com
They are still there to tell
us what constitutes a sin. So whom are you going to believe the Lord
Yeshua HaMashiach or Paul?

Jesus and Paul tell me the contrary. I read the parable of the Good
Samaritan and Paul in Romans. I base my view of scripture upon that
(amongst other things).

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
There never was any such personage as Jesus. He never
existed. The Lord's name was changed to protect the guilty.

You actually believe that?

Check out the Strong's Concordance 2424 you will find that the Lords
given or Hebrew name is Yeshua not Jesus.

Yes, and this became Jesus. So what?

No it doesn't it becomes Iesous or the Greek word for Tammuz the only
begotten son of the pagan sun god Baal.
The word Jesus did not come into use until the 14th Century.

(Yawn.) Does it matter what the messiah was called? (Except for the
eschatological title 'Son of Man')

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Iesous was the Greek work for Tammuz the only begotten son of the sun
god Baal in accent Babylon.

Rubbish! Do you really think the earliest authors of the gospels
thought that?

There is no Greek word for Yeshua HaMashiach so they chose the next
closes thing to it. Check out the Old Testament

The Old Testament?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
and you will notice
that Yeshua is translated in to the Greek and then into English as
Joshua not Jesus as in the New Testament. There is no agreement. Many
of the 4th century Roman scholars did not have access to a Torah so
they would not have know that. Oh yea the first attempt at gathering
together the scriptures happened around 310 AD then they were
translated from Greek into Latin which were later translated in the
14th century into English. Not only that but none and I do mean none
of the original Hebrew scripture were added to the collection. Only
those written in Greek because the Roman scholars could only read and
understand Greek and could not read or understand Hebrew. The Dead Sea
Scrolls prove that there were many scriptures written in the Original
Hebrew that were not included in what we now know as the New
Testament.

I'm sure that this is interesting, but I'm not sure how it relates to
the issues in this thread...

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
A person cannot be a quote Christian and be a homosexual. A person
cannot be living in sin and still go to Heaven.

What do you think 'sin' is? What do you think that the forst
Christians thought it was?

Sin is the direct disobedience of God. When God speaks to us and we
refuse to do what he tells us to do that is sin. God told Adam that he
was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam committed sin when he
disobeyed God and he ate of the fruit. The sin was not in the eating
of the fruit but in disobeying what God had told he not to do.

Sin is the state of turning away from God....a form of spiritual
death. That is wahat 'original sin' or 'birth sin' means.

How can someone turn away for God if they never knew him in the first
place? The original sin was when Adam disobeyed what God told him to
do. God said and Adam did it anyway.

Original sin is a concept that describes the natural state of man, in
which he is incapable of of keeping a commitment to behave in a
particular way. This is because he is creature of natural passions and
desires that can overwhelm anything else. That more less means that,
in his natural state, man is 'switched off' from God. Any ordinary
attempt to turn to God without an act of grace is doomed to a
reversion to this state.

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
We have got to remember that the quote First Church didn't have the
New Testament because it had not been written yet. The New Testament
wasn't even established until the year 310 AD or 310 years after
Yeshua's death and resurrection. Just as with the quote First Church
we too must rely totally and completely upon what God tells us to do
and stop listening to the false teachings of men.

Exactly so. What has this to do with Leviticus, then?

That is all they had was the Old Testament and the Laws.

We are not, repeat not, Ancient Hebrews....

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
The wages of sin is
Hell

Actually, they are death. However you may define 'death'. Some living
people are 'dead', you know....

Post by j***@hotmail.com
and to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. It takes a blood
sacrifice to cleanse a person of their sin. Yeshua's blood sacrifice
is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. None other will do. No amount of
good works or no amount of money paid to a church. A person can be a
good person, go to church every Sunday, do all kinds of good deeds and
still go to Hell.

Er...St. Paul didn't think that. Read Romans...

The Great I AM says Paul is his father's son and he like his father
Satan is a liar.

St. Paul says (in Romans) that a pagan may be justified before a
Christian.

Again who are you going to believe Paul or the Lord Yeshua HaMashiach?
Paul like his Father Satan is a liar.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be any kind of Christian that I'm
familiar with....

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
It is ONLY by the BLOOD of Yeshua that we are sanctified Holy before
our Heavenly Father and are able to enter into His presence as one of
His children.

You aren't a Christian, are you?

The word Christian literally means a follower of Christ or in the
Hebrew the Messiah. So yes I am a Christian because I am a brother of
the Jewish Messiah Yeshua HaMashiach.

Brother?????

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I Am one with my Heavenly Father
as my Heavenly Father is one with me.

You can say that you are in a state of grace?

No answer?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
I am also one with his only
begotten son Yeshua HaMashiach as Yeshua is one with me. Furthermore
I am also one with all of the other Saints who are also one with my
Heavenly Father and our Brother Yeshua HaMashiach and we are all one
in the Holy Spirit of God the Father Almighty.

And what does all that imply?

It implies that anyone who is not One with the father Son and the
Saints has no part in Him and they have damned themselves.

But how can you possibly know that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Dr.BarryWorthingtonthe question I put to you is this. Are you one
with the Father who is in Heaven and do you also know what his voice
sounds like? Yeshua said that he knows his sheep by name and they know
his voice. Do you know his voice and do you talk with him?

That would be my desire, but I would not presume to know God's will. I
just do what my poor conscience tells me. That is all that most of us
can hope for, in my opinion.

Then how on Earth can you possibly know what God's will is if you
cannot hear Him talking to you personally one on one? When you were a
child you knew exactly what your earthly parents expected of you.
Right? How by reading a book and hoping? No You listened to what they
told you? What makes you think it is any different with your Heavenly
Father?

I try to do what my conscience tells me is the right thing. Is it any
different with anyone else?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua also
said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Are you listening to Gods words
coming from God's mouth? Do you know his voice and do you do what God
tells you to do? Do you lay hands on the sick and see then healed
immediately? Do the unclean spirits flee before you? Do you take
authority over the unclean spirits and cast them out of people? I do
and so do many other like me.

You do? If you are so full of grace, why do you then seem to damn a
part of God's creation? I don't understand how you can do that. And
don't say the Old Testament. In your seeming state, you have
transcended such things....

I condemn no man for they have already condemned themselves all I am
able to do is show them the light of their salvation.

How do you know who is saved and who is condemned? Who do you think
you are? God?

Post by j***@hotmail.com

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
If your answer is no. Than my suggestion to you is to REPENT of your
sins, ask God to forgive you your sins, get baptized in water and then
ask God for his Holy Spirit. Your fancy title and you education cannot
save you. If anything they have condemned you.

Why should an education condemn me?

Because of your education you cannot hear the voice of the Lord God
Almighty talking to you.

And how do you know that?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
You are relying on your education and not
listening for God speaking to you.

Can you see into a man's heart? By reading e-mails (and probably
misunderastanding them)?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
All sinners no matter what their sin whether it be homosexuality

Homosexuality is not a sin! It appears to be part of God's creation,
for did not David's love for Jonathon surpass the love of womwn?

Post by j***@hotmail.com
or
adultery or religiosity have condemned themselves neither any man nor
has God condemned them. For they have condemned themselves. For God so
Loved the sinners that He sent His only begotten Son Yeshua not to
condemn the sinners but that through is blood sacrifice the sinners
might be delivered from their sin.

And you seem to be doing your best to negate these sentiments....

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/james-Hidequoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[C***@Knicklas.com]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:21:03 -0700, "Dr. Barry

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
No it doesn't it becomes Iesous or the Greek word for Tammuz the only
begotten son of the pagan sun god Baal.
The word Jesus did not come into use until the 14th Century.

(Yawn.) Does it matter what the messiah was called? (Except for the
eschatological title 'Son of Man')

Since the "epics" (creation, flood, and messiah) were
all part of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" (earliest known
writing)----I'd say any "truth" to the accounts in the
bible are rather suspicious copied.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:21:03 -0700, "Dr.Barry

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
No it doesn't it becomes Iesous or the Greek word for Tammuz the only
begotten son of the pagan sun god Baal.
The word Jesus did not come into use until the 14th Century.

(Yawn.) Does it matter what the messiah was called? (Except for the
eschatological title 'Son of Man')

Since the "epics" (creation, flood, and messiah) were
all part of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" (earliest known
writing)----I'd say any "truth" to the accounts in the
bible are rather suspicious copied.

The ancient hebraic messianic tradition has nothing whatever to do
with the Epic of Gilgamesh. It developed around the time of the
babylonian captivity.

Dr. Barry Worthington

[C***@Knicklas.com]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:28:43 -0700, "Dr. Barry

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:21:03 -0700, "Dr.Barry

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by j***@hotmail.com
No it doesn't it becomes Iesous or the Greek word for Tammuz the only
begotten son of the pagan sun god Baal.
The word Jesus did not come into use until the 14th Century.

(Yawn.) Does it matter what the messiah was called? (Except for the
eschatological title 'Son of Man')

Since the "epics" (creation, flood, and messiah) were
all part of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" (earliest known
writing)----I'd say any "truth" to the accounts in the
bible are rather suspicious copied.

The ancient hebraic messianic tradition has nothing whatever to do
with the Epic of Gilgamesh. It developed around the time of the
babylonian captivity.

The clay tablets clearly contain a fairly comparable
description of Gilgamesh's friend, Enkidu who "descends
into hell" then rises again.

If the Clay Tablets on which the "epic of Gilgamesh"
predate "ancient Hebrews" by a lot of
centuries---it/they could have influenced Jewish
tradition

Clearly, the creation and flood epic are mentioned
centuries before in the "epic..."

[SeaWoe]

Post by Pmb

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is an abomination before God and according to the Bible
ALL homosexuals are to be executed.

That's Old Testament. If you're a Christian then you follow what is in the
New Testament and that doesn't mean killing anyone. Recall the instance
where a crowd was to stone a woman for adultery as scripture dictated. Jesus
stepped in and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Post by j***@hotmail.com
Yeshua went on the cross and shed his most precious blood for their
sins just as he did everybody else's. The price for our sin was
Yeshua's death on that cross that is the message we should be sending
to the gay community.

You mean the Christian gay community right? Gay atheists are not concerned
with sin.
Pete

As an aside, would object to me marrying my sister? (We're well beyond
child-bearing age and have a lot in common.)
If your answer is that you would object, please tell us why.

[jane8816]

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

You actually believe anything Rush says? Rush - the poster child for
family values (NOT) with multiple failed marriages & significant drug
usage. Is there a bigger hypocrite?

[Jack Granade]

Post by jane8816

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

You actually believe anything Rush says? Rush - the poster child for
family values (NOT) with multiple failed marriages & significant drug
usage. Is there a bigger hypocrite?
Rush still has freedom of speech even though you left wing commies want to
silence him.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Yeah, we should. I want to see nude photos of Marisa Miller displayed
on a hugh billboard right outside my bedroom window. But those damn
liberals got rid off all the billboards in Massachusetts. I am @#$
%ing sick and tired of having to surf the web to find that photo of
her where she is only wearing an iPod and a suntan. And some
jewelry. And a smile.

Aaron Hirshberg

[Pmb]

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Since I never listen to Rush or anyone else who dwells on this issue, I'm
not clear on what these "special rights" are.

Pete

[Docky Wocky]

"Why, yes, Mohammed. I cannot tell a lie.

Bruce, over there, is a homosexual, but he has far more rights than I do, so
you will just have to forget that I told you anything at all about him and
his perverted sexual preferences...and if you don't tell anyone else about
this, he has been eyeing your camel in a funny way for days..."

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?

Dr. Barry Worthington

[The Cunning Linguist]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr. Barry Worthington

Gays can't marry same sex but neither can 'straights' marry same sex.
'Straights can marry opposite sex and gays can marry opposite sex. So,
where is the bigotry? Where is the inequity? Where is the common sense?
If same sex marriage is allowed it will be because the definition of
marriage is changed, not inequality. When that occurs it will set a
precedent to allow all manner of marriages. I'm sure Mormons would be the
next group to complain that restriction of marraige to multiple spouses is
discrimination. What harm does it do to have four wives? Imagine, one wife
stays home to take care of all the kids while the other three have jobs.

You are basing your arguement on the supposition that there is a 'male',
'female' and 'other' catagories while everyone else bases their position
upon only male and female. I understand your point of view but your
arguement is based upon a deceptive premise.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr.BarryWorthington

Gays can't marry same sex but neither can 'straights' marry same sex.

Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.

Simple isn't it?

Post by The Cunning Linguist
'Straights can marry opposite sex and gays can marry opposite sex. So,
where is the bigotry? Where is the inequity? Where is the common sense?

I have just demonstrated it. You, on the other hand want to obfuscate
and muddy the waters. Why do you want toi do that? Is it because you
are a bigot?

Post by The Cunning Linguist
If same sex marriage is allowed it will be because the definition of
marriage is changed, not inequality.

How is the definition of marriage changed?

Post by The Cunning Linguist
When that occurs it will set a
precedent to allow all manner of marriages.

Why should it?

Post by The Cunning Linguist
I'm sure Mormons would be the
next group to complain that restriction of marraige to multiple spouses is
discrimination.

Wello, no, because we define marriage as involving one partner. Gays
are not asking be be allowed to marry more than one partner.

Post by The Cunning Linguist
What harm does it do to have four wives? Imagine, one wife
stays home to take care of all the kids while the other three have jobs.

No-one, apart from Mormon crackpots, would want more than one wife.
Nothing to do with gays.

Post by The Cunning Linguist
You are basing your arguement on the supposition that there is a 'male',
'female' and 'other' catagories while everyone else bases their position
upon only male and female.

Everyone else?

Post by The Cunning Linguist
I understand your point of view but your
arguement is based upon a deceptive premise.

What deceptive premise?

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[The Cunning Linguist]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr.BarryWorthington

Gays can't marry same sex but neither can 'straights' marry same sex.

Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.
Simple isn't it?

If it's so simple then why do you have a problem understanding it. I made
the statement (fact) of who can marry and your response had noting to do
with my comment.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
'Straights can marry opposite sex and gays can marry opposite sex. So,
where is the bigotry? Where is the inequity? Where is the common sense?

I have just demonstrated it. You, on the other hand want to obfuscate
and muddy the waters. Why do you want toi do that? Is it because you
are a bigot?

Excuse me but you are the one guilty of obfuscation. You are responding to
my comments about marriage with references to love. Although love and
mmarriage is an ideal, it is not a qualifier.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
If same sex marriage is allowed it will be because the definition of
marriage is changed, not inequality.

How is the definition of marriage changed?

I'll presume, for the sake of this discussion, that you your question is
sincere. Man and woman is the traditional marriage. Changing marriage to
allow same sex is changing the definition.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
When that occurs it will set a
precedent to allow all manner of marriages.

Why should it?

Why shouldn't it? If the definiiton of mmarriage can be changed to allow
one group then no one has the right to deny changing for another. Wouldn't
that be discriminnaiton? Woouldn't that be giving a special status to a
select group?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
I'm sure Mormons would be the
next group to complain that restriction of marraige to multiple spouses is
discrimination.

Wello, no, because we define marriage as involving one partner. Gays
are not asking be be allowed to marry more than one partner.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You want to redefine marriage on your grounds only to
deny another group the same opportunity?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
What harm does it do to have four wives? Imagine, one wife
stays home to take care of all the kids while the other three have jobs.

No-one, apart from Mormon crackpots, would want more than one wife.
Nothing to do with gays.

True, nothing to dowith gays but has to do with the subject at hand -
redefining the meaning of mmarriage.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
You are basing your arguement on the supposition that there is a 'male',
'female' and 'other' catagories while everyone else bases their position
upon only male and female.

Everyone else?

Yes.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
I understand your point of view but your
arguement is based upon a deceptive premise.

What deceptive premise?

That you want the "definition" of marriage changed not simply allowance of
another group.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr.BarryWorthington

Gays can't marry same sex but neither can 'straights' marry same sex.

Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.
Simple isn't it?

If it's so simple then why do you have a problem understanding it. I made
the statement (fact) of who can marry and your response had noting to do
with my comment.

No you didn't. You just tried to muddy the water with secious
comments.

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
'Straights can marry opposite sex and gays can marry opposite sex. So,
where is the bigotry? Where is the inequity? Where is the common sense?

I have just demonstrated it. You, on the other hand want to obfuscate
and muddy the waters. Why do you want toi do that? Is it because you
are a bigot?

Excuse me but you are the one guilty of obfuscation. You are responding to
my comments about marriage with references to love. Although love and
mmarriage is an ideal, it is not a qualifier.

More obfuscation. If you don't like gays, say so. Don't be a moral
coward....

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
If same sex marriage is allowed it will be because the definition of
marriage is changed, not inequality.

How is the definition of marriage changed?

I'll presume, for the sake of this discussion, that you your question is
sincere. Man and woman is the traditional marriage.

So what! There have been exceptions throughout recorded history....

Post by The Cunning Linguist
Changing marriage to
allow same sex is changing the definition.

Why is it?

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
When that occurs it will set a
precedent to allow all manner of marriages.

Why should it?

Why shouldn't it? If the definiiton of mmarriage can be changed to allow
one group then no one has the right to deny changing for another. Wouldn't
that be discriminnaiton? Woouldn't that be giving a special status to a
select group?

No. You clearly haven't thought this through.

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
I'm sure Mormons would be the
next group to complain that restriction of marraige to multiple spouses is
discrimination.

Wello, no, because we define marriage as involving one partner. Gays
are not asking be be allowed to marry more than one partner.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You want to redefine marriage on your grounds only to
deny another group the same opportunity?

I am not redefining marriage. It is still a commitment, civil or
religious, between two people (not hitherto closely related) who love
each other, and want to form a recognised partnership with each other.
See, it is still simple....unless you are a bigot...

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
What harm does it do to have four wives? Imagine, one wife
stays home to take care of all the kids while the other three have jobs.

No-one, apart from Mormon crackpots, would want more than one wife.
Nothing to do with gays.

True, nothing to dowith gays but has to do with the subject at hand -
redefining the meaning of mmarriage.

The subject at hand does not re-define marriage.

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
You are basing your arguement on the supposition that there is a 'male',
'female' and 'other' catagories while everyone else bases their position
upon only male and female.

Everyone else?

Yes.

Not everyone else....not by a long chalk....

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
I understand your point of view but your
arguement is based upon a deceptive premise.

What deceptive premise?

That you want the "definition" of marriage changed not simply allowance of
another group.

I do not want the definition changed.

Now stop muddying the water. If you don't like gays, for God's sake
say so!

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr.BarryWorthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Horvath]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:08:24 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.
Simple isn't it?

No. My neighbor's daughter is real cute, and I'd like to marry her,
but she's only 15. You can't marry whoever you want. You can't even
peek in her windows when she's naked.



***@Horvath.net

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:08:24 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.
Simple isn't it?

No. My neighbor's daughter is real cute, and I'd like to marry her,
but she's only 15. You can't marry whoever you want. You can't even
peek in her windows when she's naked.

Yes, but if you allowed gays to marry, both heterosexuals and
homosexuals would still be unable to marry their daughters.

So what are you arguing about?

Dr. Barry Worthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Horvath]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:50:57 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.
Simple isn't it?

No. My neighbor's daughter is real cute, and I'd like to marry her,
but she's only 15. You can't marry whoever you want. You can't even
peek in her windows when she's naked.

Yes, but if you allowed gays to marry, both heterosexuals and
homosexuals would still be unable to marry their daughters.
So what are you arguing about?

It was this stupid statement:
---------------------------------------------

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.

--------------------------------------------------

A lot of people love their pets, and yet.....



***@Horvath.net

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:50:57 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.
Gay's can't.
Simple isn't it?

No. My neighbor's daughter is real cute, and I'd like to marry her,
but she's only 15. You can't marry whoever you want. You can't even
peek in her windows when she's naked.

Yes, but if you allowed gays to marry, both heterosexuals and
homosexuals would still be unable to marry their daughters.
So what are you arguing about?

--------------------------------------------->> >Er.....Heterosexuals can marry the love partner of their choice.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Gay's can't.

--------------------------------------------------
A lot of people love their pets, and yet.....

Yes, but I assumed that most people who read it would be sensible....

Dr. Barry Worthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.

In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.

[SeaWoe]

On Aug 17, 5:17 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.
In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Care to predict some of these super-rights?
Surely you must have some in mind.

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

Post by SeaWoe
On Aug 17, 5:17 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.
In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Care to predict some of these super-rights?
Surely you must have some in mind.

Why but of course I do. It will come in the form of a modification to
the current Civil Rights laws granting class protection based on race,
color, creed, sex, national origin, age, religion, or disability.

The change(s) will be similar to Vermont's where sexual orientation &
gender identity have already been added to the aforementioned mix. In
Vermont's case the term “gender identity” means an individual’s actual
or perceived gender identity, or gender-related characteristics
intrinsically related to an individual’s gender or gender-identity,
regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.

We will go from not only having to identify our gender & "race" on
employment forms, but our sexual orientation & perceived gender.

We will basically get to the point where everybody but an able bodied
white male gets a hiring preference & preferred treatment in every
entitlement program.

You have to remember the "cause" went from simple tolerance (live &
live) to an attempt to force acceptance as "normal" things which have
no business being a topic of concern in the workplace, housing, or
even access to government programs.

It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.

[paleryder]

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.

And what would be the difference between "equality", and "being accepted as
normal and natural"?

So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
(woo woo)
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:30:42 -0400, "paleryder"

Post by paleryder

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.

And what would be the difference between "equality", and "being accepted as
normal and natural"?
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy

While it isn't always so common, or course I'll show Common Courtesy.

Post by paleryder
Have some sympathy, and some taste

Why on earth would I have to show sympathy. One of the bigger
problems with this country is we attempt to be sorry for everything.

Post by paleryder
(woo woo)
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste

Always more then welcome to try.

[paleryder]

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:30:42 -0400, "paleryder"

Post by paleryder

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.

And what would be the difference between "equality", and "being accepted as
normal and natural"?
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy

While it isn't always so common, or course I'll show Common Courtesy.

Post by paleryder
Have some sympathy, and some taste

Why on earth would I have to show sympathy. One of the bigger
problems with this country is we attempt to be sorry for everything.

Post by paleryder
(woo woo)
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste

Always more then welcome to try.

My error. I should have shown it as a quote:

"So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste" - Rolling Stones

[ZNUYBV]

On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by SeaWoe
On Aug 17, 5:17 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.
In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Care to predict some of these super-rights?
Surely you must have some in mind.

Why but of course I do. It will come in the form of a modification to
the current Civil Rights laws granting class protection based on race,
color, creed, sex, national origin, age, religion, or disability.
The change(s) will be similar to Vermont's where sexual orientation &
gender identity have already been added to the aforementioned mix. In
Vermont's case the term "gender identity" means an individual's actual
or perceived gender identity, or gender-related characteristics
intrinsically related to an individual's gender or gender-identity,
regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth.
We will go from not only having to identify our gender & "race" on
employment forms, but our sexual orientation & perceived gender.
We will basically get to the point where everybody but an able bodied
white male gets a hiring preference & preferred treatment in every
entitlement program.
You have to remember the "cause" went from simple tolerance (live &
live) to an attempt to force acceptance as "normal" things which have
no business being a topic of concern in the workplace, housing, or
even access to government programs.
It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues

In the blanks for Race and Gender I will put down,"What do you need?'
I heard of a guy who put down on his employment app for race, Native
American. Being from NYC he put down 'Manhattan' for tribe. Th Human
Resources boss was elated. She would not look a gift horse in the
mouth, so to speak.

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

Post by ZNUYBV
On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by SeaWoe
On Aug 17, 5:17 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.
In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Care to predict some of these super-rights?
Surely you must have some in mind.

Why but of course I do. It will come in the form of a modification to
the current Civil Rights laws granting class protection based on race,
color, creed, sex, national origin, age, religion, or disability.
The change(s) will be similar to Vermont's where sexual orientation &
gender identity have already been added to the aforementioned mix. In
Vermont's case the term "gender identity" means an individual's actual
or perceived gender identity, or gender-related characteristics
intrinsically related to an individual's gender or gender-identity,
regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth.
We will go from not only having to identify our gender & "race" on
employment forms, but our sexual orientation & perceived gender.
We will basically get to the point where everybody but an able bodied
white male gets a hiring preference & preferred treatment in every
entitlement program.
You have to remember the "cause" went from simple tolerance (live &
live) to an attempt to force acceptance as "normal" things which have
no business being a topic of concern in the workplace, housing, or
even access to government programs.
It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues

In the blanks for Race and Gender I will put down,"What do you need?'
I heard of a guy who put down on his employment app for race, Native
American. Being from NYC he put down 'Manhattan' for tribe. Th Human
Resources boss was elated. She would not look a gift horse in the
mouth, so to speak.

As of late I've simply been refusing o "self-identify". At best I'm
just a plain old American without any hyphens. My gender should have
absolutely no bearing on my ability to perform a job, hence neither
are needed for them to make a decision.

Now all that being said, I could tell you some absolute horror stories
of certain HR departments fanatic desire to hire "Diversity"
candidates. After all, aren't we all "Diverse" in our own little
salient ways. I've never met any two people exactly alike.

[SeaWoe]

Post by ZNUYBV
On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by SeaWoe
On Aug 17, 5:17 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.
In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Care to predict some of these super-rights?
Surely you must have some in mind.

Why but of course I do. It will come in the form of a modification to
the current Civil Rights laws granting class protection based on race,
color, creed, sex, national origin, age, religion, or disability.
The change(s) will be similar to Vermont's where sexual orientation &
gender identity have already been added to the aforementioned mix. In
Vermont's case the term "gender identity" means an individual's actual
or perceived gender identity, or gender-related characteristics
intrinsically related to an individual's gender or gender-identity,
regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth.
We will go from not only having to identify our gender & "race" on
employment forms, but our sexual orientation & perceived gender.
We will basically get to the point where everybody but an able bodied
white male gets a hiring preference & preferred treatment in every
entitlement program.
You have to remember the "cause" went from simple tolerance (live &
live) to an attempt to force acceptance as "normal" things which have
no business being a topic of concern in the workplace, housing, or
even access to government programs.
It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues

In the blanks for Race and Gender I will put down,"What do you need?'
I heard of a guy who put down on his employment app for race, Native
American. Being from NYC he put down 'Manhattan' for tribe. Th Human
Resources boss was elated. She would not look a gift horse in the
mouth, so to speak.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Interesting.
I figure that, roughly, 12,000 generations have passed sine
man" began to walk upright. If anyone claims to be 200% any race.there
will be one hell of a job proving or disproving it.

[SeaWoe]

On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by SeaWoe
On Aug 17, 5:17 pm, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.
In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Care to predict some of these super-rights?
Surely you must have some in mind.

Why but of course I do. It will come in the form of a modification to
the current Civil Rights laws granting class protection based on race,
color, creed, sex, national origin, age, religion, or disability.
The change(s) will be similar to Vermont's where sexual orientation &
gender identity have already been added to the aforementioned mix. In
Vermont's case the term "gender identity" means an individual's actual
or perceived gender identity, or gender-related characteristics
intrinsically related to an individual's gender or gender-identity,
regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth.
We will go from not only having to identify our gender & "race" on
employment forms, but our sexual orientation & perceived gender.
We will basically get to the point where everybody but an able bodied
white male gets a hiring preference & preferred treatment in every
entitlement program.
You have to remember the "cause" went from simple tolerance (live &
live) to an attempt to force acceptance as "normal" things which have
no business being a topic of concern in the workplace, housing, or
even access to government programs.
It isn't about "equality" it is about being accepted as normal &
natural.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well, if a person isn't hired because they are white, that is
descrimination in some / most states. If you dispute this, please
state in which state(s) it isn't discrimination.

Transexuals, who don't get a job for that reason, have a fair case for
sueing, assuming there is no rare circumstance where it st is a valid
problem.
I don't care who cleans my car or cuts my hair. Why should I?

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On 18 Aug, 01:17, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.

Civil marriage is, indeed the most important 'right'. This is because
it is a fundamental cilvil law contract between two people, and so
many things flow from it. These include the right of a gay partner to
inherit if the other dies intestate, the right to become the legal
next of kin if anything happens to the other partner, the right to
entitlement to social benefits as a partner, etc. etc. At present, gay
couples have to enter into all kinds of private legal arrangements
relating to their partnership, and some (such as the right to burial
in a family grave) are impossible to guarantee. The 'right' to clivil
marriage avoids all these complications and problems.

You really haven't considered any of this, have you?

Dr. Barry Worthington

In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.

Why should it?

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:57:28 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 18 Aug, 01:17, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.

Civil marriage is, indeed the most important 'right'. This is because
it is a fundamental cilvil law contract between two people, and so
many things flow from it. These include the right of a gay partner to
inherit if the other dies intestate, the right to become the legal
next of kin if anything happens to the other partner, the right to
entitlement to social benefits as a partner, etc. etc. At present, gay
couples have to enter into all kinds of private legal arrangements
relating to their partnership, and some (such as the right to burial
in a family grave) are impossible to guarantee. The 'right' to clivil
marriage avoids all these complications and problems.
You really haven't considered any of this, have you?

I've concerned all of it, that is why I said it was "financially
based". Other then the entitlement to social benefits, which I don't
think anyone is "Entitled" to, any & all of the issues you addressed
can be taken care of with a good lawyer.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington

In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.

Why should it?

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On 24 Aug, 01:19, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:57:28 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 18 Aug, 01:17, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:35:51 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.

Often said, but when asked exactly what those "Rights" are; none are
able to articulate it. They may natter on endlessly about Marriage,
but in the end most of the arguments being financially based.

Civil marriage is, indeed the most important 'right'. This is because
it is a fundamental cilvil law contract between two people, and so
many things flow from it. These include the right of a gay partner to
inherit if the other dies intestate, the right to become the legal
next of kin if anything happens to the other partner, the right to
entitlement to social benefits as a partner, etc. etc. At present, gay
couples have to enter into all kinds of private legal arrangements
relating to their partnership, and some (such as the right to burial
in a family grave) are impossible to guarantee. The 'right' to clivil
marriage avoids all these complications and problems.
You really haven't considered any of this, have you?

I've concerned all of it, that is why I said it was "financially
based".

So the right to be told of the medical state of a gay partner injured
in an accident or seriously ill is 'financial' in nature? Or the human
desire to be buried next to your gay lover?

Other then the entitlement to social benefits, which I don't
think anyone is "Entitled" to, any & all of the issues you addressed
can be taken care of with a good lawyer.

Why should that be necessary? It wouldn't be in the case of a
heterosexual partner.

Let me ask you a question. If a gay couple wish to marry using a civil
ceremony, why is it any of your business? I mean, how will it affect
you?

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr.BarryWorthington

In the end game, it will end up being about "Super Rights" as a
protected class and nothing more.

Why should it?

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Horvath]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:34:18 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Let me ask you a question. If a gay couple wish to marry using a civil
ceremony, why is it any of your business? I mean, how will it affect
you?

They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.
Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.


***@Horvath.net

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:34:18 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Let me ask you a question. If a gay couple wish to marry using a civil
ceremony, why is it any of your business? I mean, how will it affect
you?

They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.

How? I mean, how would your your children know.....unless they heard
it from idiots like you?

Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.

They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Dr. Barry Worthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Horvath]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:04:32 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.

How? I mean, how would your your children know.....unless they heard
it from idiots like you?

You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.

They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.


***@Horvath.net

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:04:32 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.

How? I mean, how would your your children know.....unless they heard
it from idiots like you?

You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

In my experience, children tend to pick up such information (or
misinformation) from listening to boneheaded adults.....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.

They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Actually, I couldn't care less when you mow your lawn.

Why should you be bothered about what people do in their bedrooms?

We are all of us as God made us.....and some of us much worse....

Dr. Barry Worthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[The Cunning Linguist]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:04:32 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.

How? I mean, how would your your children know.....unless they heard
it from idiots like you?

You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

In my experience, children tend to pick up such information (or
misinformation) from listening to boneheaded adults.....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.

They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Actually, I couldn't care less when you mow your lawn.
Why should you be bothered about what people do in their bedrooms?

Believe me, most people aren't aware of what other people do in their own
bedrooms. Which brings us back to how do people know their neighbors are
gay?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
We are all of us as God made us.....and some of us much worse....
Dr. Barry Worthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:04:32 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.

How? I mean, how would your your children know.....unless they heard
it from idiots like you?

You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

In my experience, children tend to pick up such information (or
misinformation) from listening to boneheaded adults.....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.

They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Actually, I couldn't care less when you mow your lawn.
Why should you be bothered about what people do in their bedrooms?

Believe me, most people aren't aware of what other people do in their own
bedrooms. Which brings us back to how do people know their neighbors are
gay?

You tell me. You seem to be the expert.

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
We are all of us as God made us.....and some of us much worse....
Dr.BarryWorthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[The Cunning Linguist]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:04:32 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.

How? I mean, how would your your children know.....unless they heard
it from idiots like you?

You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

In my experience, children tend to pick up such information (or
misinformation) from listening to boneheaded adults.....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.

They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Actually, I couldn't care less when you mow your lawn.
Why should you be bothered about what people do in their bedrooms?

Believe me, most people aren't aware of what other people do in their own
bedrooms. Which brings us back to how do people know their neighbors are
gay?

You tell me. You seem to be the expert.

Indirectly, that is my point. For the most part, I have no way of knowing
unless you tell me.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
We are all of us as God made us.....and some of us much worse....
Dr.BarryWorthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:04:32 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
They might live next to me, and it would affect my children.

How? I mean, how would your your children know.....unless they heard
it from idiots like you?

You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

In my experience, children tend to pick up such information (or
misinformation) from listening to boneheaded adults.....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
Actually, they would live next to somebody, and affect society in
general.

They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Actually, I couldn't care less when you mow your lawn.
Why should you be bothered about what people do in their bedrooms?

Believe me, most people aren't aware of what other people do in their own
bedrooms. Which brings us back to how do people know their neighbors are
gay?

You tell me. You seem to be the expert.

Indirectly, that is my point. For the most part, I have no way of knowing
unless you tell me.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seemed to want to argue
Horvath's point. At the moment you are wasting your own time and mine.

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr.BarryWorthington

Post by The Cunning Linguist

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
We are all of us as God made us.....and some of us much worse....
Dr.BarryWorthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Horvath]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:45:05 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

In my experience, children tend to pick up such information (or
misinformation) from listening to boneheaded adults.....

I'm taking notes here, "All adults are boneheads," got it.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Actually, I couldn't care less when you mow your lawn.

You would when I fire up my 17 hp lawn tractor. It's loud enough to
rip the shingles off your roof.



***@Horvath.net

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:45:05 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath
You think they wouldn't know? How stupid are you?

In my experience, children tend to pick up such information (or
misinformation) from listening to boneheaded adults.....

I'm taking notes here, "All adults are boneheads," got it.

No....but some are. Usually those who misunderstand postings...

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Horvath

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
They have so much power? If you lived next to me, would that affect
me?

Of course. Especially when I mow my lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Actually, I couldn't care less when you mow your lawn.

You would when I fire up my 17 hp lawn tractor. It's loud enough to
rip the shingles off your roof.

Yes, but I'm sometimes preparing my railway engine at that time....


Dr. Barry Worthington

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:34:18 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"
<***@abertay.ac.uk> wrote something wonderfully witty:
<snip>

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
You really haven't considered any of this, have you?

I've concerned all of it, that is why I said it was "financially
based".

So the right to be told of the medical state of a gay partner injured
in an accident or seriously ill is 'financial' in nature? Or the human
desire to be buried next to your gay lover?

That is an extremely old wives tale that has gone out of practice in
most major hospitals almost entirely. Pretty much anyone with an
interest can find out about the medical state of a person in a
hospital today. That includes visiting them while their hospitalized.
I've never ever had a problem finding out the status of a hospitalized
friend or even had trouble visiting them, even in ICU, regardless of
their gender or our family relationship. It ain't the 50's anymore.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
Other then the entitlement to social benefits, which I don't
think anyone is "Entitled" to, any & all of the issues you addressed
can be taken care of with a good lawyer.

Why should that be necessary? It wouldn't be in the case of a
heterosexual partner.

Again, no one (Gay, Straight, or Bent) from my perspective has any
"Right" to stick their hand in the collective till so you simply can't
make the argument to me that anyone should be allowed to regardless of
their sexual preference or even choice of Marriage Partner. Since I
guess two Straight Guys could get Married for no other reason then
access to benefits or their ability to stick their hand into the
public till their is no reason to acknowledge it. Since the argument
of access to Social Benefits doesn't hold water for me from any
perspective I am all for the equality of nobody gets jackshit from the
public coffers because of a relationship to somebody else.

Now if a "Gay" couple have an adopted child, that child would become
eligible for Survivor benefits from Social Security just as the child
from any straight union, natural born or adopted.

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Let me ask you a question. If a gay couple wish to marry using a civil
ceremony, why is it any of your business? I mean, how will it affect
you?

Personally, I could care less if they stand naked in their backyard &
howl at the moon. After all the true purpose of Marriage or a Civil
Union is to make the commitment to each, in front of their friends,
family & the deity of their choice. It is at its root the public
proclamation of devotion to another and has nothing to do with
finances.

I know many people who consider themselves to be married and have no
stinkin state authorized piece of paper. If any two, or even three,
four or seven people are devoted to each other and create a family
unit of their choice, that is their business and should require no
higher sanctioning authority then between them their friends & family
& the deity of their choice. If they want to ensure that inheritance
desires are followed they should get a good lawyer.

The issue of who can marry whom (to include barnyard animals) has
absolutely nothing to do with business of running this country &
therefore has no business up for discussion & debate at the National
level, especially when we have so many more pressing issues facing us
as a country. I also happen to feel the exact same way about Abortion
as well, with it not being an issue worthy of the expenditure of time,
money & effort at the National level as it has nothing to do with the
business of running the country.

However, being a big states rights guy, I concede that I think it is
up to each individual state (which is the one the grants the Marriage
License after all) anyhow to determine who is eligible to Marry whom.
Therefore again not making it an issue worthy of National Debate or
the expenditure of resources.

Now if you are willing to defend Gay Marriage, are you willing to
defend Polygamy & Incestous ones as well? What about Barnyard animals
if you can get their consent? Where does it stop or do we just become
pure hedonists in the search of whatever pleasure we personally feel
we require. Even if that is the case why does the Federal level of
our government need to get involved?

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On 25 Aug, 03:01, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:34:18 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"
<snip>

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
You really haven't considered any of this, have you?

I've concerned all of it, that is why I said it was "financially
based".

So the right to be told of the medical state of a gay partner injured
in an accident or seriously ill is 'financial' in nature? Or the human
desire to be buried next to your gay lover?

That is an extremely old wives tale that has gone out of practice in
most major hospitals almost entirely.

You know that for a fact?

Pretty much anyone with an
interest can find out about the medical state of a person in a
hospital today. That includes visiting them while their hospitalized.

Don't be silly. Visits are always restricted to family members and
next of kin when the condition is serious or life-threatening....

I've never ever had a problem finding out the status of a hospitalized
friend or even had trouble visiting them, even in ICU, regardless of
their gender or our family relationship. It ain't the 50's anymore.

Isn't it?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
Other then the entitlement to social benefits, which I don't
think anyone is "Entitled" to, any & all of the issues you addressed
can be taken care of with a good lawyer.

Why should that be necessary? It wouldn't be in the case of a
heterosexual partner.

Again, no one (Gay, Straight, or Bent)

Bent????????

from my perspective has any
"Right" to stick their hand in the collective till so you simply can't
make the argument to me that anyone should be allowed to regardless of
their sexual preference or even choice of Marriage Partner.

We are not talking about 'anyone'.....

Since I
guess two Straight Guys could get Married for no other reason then
access to benefits or their ability to stick their hand into the
public till their is no reason to acknowledge it.

And you actually think that is likely?

Since the argument
of access to Social Benefits doesn't hold water for me from any
perspective I am all for the equality of nobody gets jackshit from the
public coffers because of a relationship to somebody else.

Not even a child?

Now if a "Gay" couple have an adopted child, that child would become
eligible for Survivor benefits from Social Security just as the child
from any straight union, natural born or adopted.

But why are you so concerned about all this in the first place?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Let me ask you a question. If a gay couple wish to marry using a civil
ceremony, why is it any of your business? I mean, how will it affect
you?

Personally, I could care less if they stand naked in their backyard &
howl at the moon. After all the true purpose of Marriage or a Civil
Union is to make the commitment to each, in front of their friends,
family & the deity of their choice. It is at its root the public
proclamation of devotion to another and has nothing to do with
finances.

I would read the marriage service. And we are talking about a civil
contract here. Nothing more, nothing less...

I know many people who consider themselves to be married and have no
stinkin state authorized piece of paper. If any two, or even three,
four or seven people are devoted to each other and create a family
unit of their choice, that is their business and should require no
higher sanctioning authority then between them their friends & family
& the deity of their choice. If they want to ensure that inheritance
desires are followed they should get a good lawyer.

In legal terms, its much easier if they are married. That's why a lot
of people do it....

The issue of who can marry whom (to include barnyard animals)

That is a rather crass thing to say...

has
absolutely nothing to do with business of running this country &
therefore has no business up for discussion & debate at the National
level, especially when we have so many more pressing issues facing us
as a country.

Well, civil marriage has always been a function and facility of the
modern secular state, whether you like it or not....

I also happen to feel the exact same way about Abortion
as well, with it not being an issue worthy of the expenditure of time,
money & effort at the National level as it has nothing to do with the
business of running the country.

And what do you think that involves?

However, being a big states rights guy, I concede that I think it is
up to each individual state (which is the one the grants the Marriage
License after all) anyhow to determine who is eligible to Marry whom.

So where does 'full faith and credit' come into this? I believe that
gays can marry in the Stae of Massachusets. For legal purposes, would
such a marriage be recognised elsewhere?

Therefore again not making it an issue worthy of National Debate or
the expenditure of resources.

Why is it not worthy?

Now if you are willing to defend Gay Marriage, are you willing to
defend Polygamy & Incestous ones as well?

Of course not. Such marriages remain illegal for both herteosexual and
gay couples.

What about Barnyard animals
if you can get their consent?

And how would one do that? Look, just admit it. You don't like gays
and you are a bigot. Either that, or your abilities to reason are
severely impaired.

Where does it stop or do we just become
pure hedonists in the search of whatever pleasure we personally feel
we require. Even if that is the case why does the Federal level of
our government need to get involved?

You do write tosh, don't you?

Dr. Barry Worthington

"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues

[Trace]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr. Barry Worthington

Barry, you're always good for a great laugh.
Just because some group wants something to be accepted as normal does
not mean said group is going to get what they want if it runs counter
to the views and opinions of most Americans. Sorry.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by Trace

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr.BarryWorthington

Barry, you're always good for a great laugh.
Just because some group wants something to be accepted as normal does
not mean said group is going to get what they want if it runs counter
to the views and opinions of most Americans.

Are you sure it does?

Post by Trace
Sorry.

You are apologising for being a bigot?

Dr. Barry Worthington


- Hide quoted text -

Post by Trace
- Show quoted text -

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr.BarryWorthington

Barry, you're always good for a great laugh.
Just because some group wants something to be accepted as normal does
not mean said group is going to get what they want if it runs counter
to the views and opinions of most Americans.

Are you sure it does?

Post by Trace
Sorry.

You are apologising for being a bigot?

Ah the old you don't believe what I believe, therefore you must be a
bigot. Interesting who the oh so open-minded ones are usually the
first to hurl & insult or jump to a conclusion.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On 24 Aug, 01:23, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.

No, they don't. They just need the same rights as everyone else.

Post by Tracey12
They already have the US Constitution.

So did slaves before Emancipation. So did women before they were
allowed to vote. So did 'coloured' people in the Southern States
before the 1960s.....

Post by Tracey12
Thats all non homosexuals have.

Well, they also have some rights that homosexuals do not presently
have.

Post by Tracey12
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

Homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why are you people so stupid? Or is it just plain old bigotry?
Dr.BarryWorthington

Barry, you're always good for a great laugh.
Just because some group wants something to be accepted as normal does
not mean said group is going to get what they want if it runs counter
to the views and opinions of most Americans.

Are you sure it does?

Post by Trace
Sorry.

You are apologising for being a bigot?

Ah the old you don't believe what I believe, therefore you must be a
bigot.

A bigot is someone who hates or perhaps even persecutes a group of
people in society for no good reason other that that they are
'different' from themselves. It has nothing whatever to do with having
different views per se. It has everything to do with being illogical
and one of nature's ars*h*les. Got that?

Interesting who the oh so open-minded ones are usually the
first to hurl & insult or jump to a conclusion.

If it acts and talks like a duck, then it must be.....

Dr. Barry worthington

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:42:50 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"
<***@abertay.ac.uk> wrote something wonderfully witty:
<snip>

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
You are apologising for being a bigot?

Ah the old you don't believe what I believe, therefore you must be a
bigot.

A bigot is someone who hates or perhaps even persecutes a group of
people in society for no good reason other that that they are
'different' from themselves. It has nothing whatever to do with having
different views per se. It has everything to do with being illogical
and one of nature's ars*h*les. Got that?

Actually a Bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any
differing creed, belief, or opinion. Unfortunately it appears that
you are beginning to fit that definition quite nicely yourself.
Unless you want to go with the old school definition of a derogatory
name applied by the French to the Normans.

BTW: Since we are on the definition of the word & perhaps its proper
use. Are you aware that "Bigots" may have more in common with God
than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of
Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III,
uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English
equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost
surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a
term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense.

Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used
abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay
sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an
excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded
in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On 25 Aug, 03:01, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:42:50 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"
<snip>

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
You are apologising for being a bigot?

Ah the old you don't believe what I believe, therefore you must be a
bigot.

A bigot is someone who hates or perhaps even persecutes a group of
people in society for no good reason other that that they are
'different' from themselves. It has nothing whatever to do with having
different views per se. It has everything to do with being illogical
and one of nature's ars*h*les. Got that?

Actually a Bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any
differing creed, belief, or opinion. Unfortunately it appears that
you are beginning to fit that definition quite nicely yourself.

Why?

Dr. Barry Worthington

Unless you want to go with the old school definition of a derogatory
name applied by the French to the Normans.
BTW: Since we are on the definition of the word & perhaps its proper
use. Are you aware that "Bigots" may have more in common with God
than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of
Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III,
uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English
equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost
surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a
term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense.
Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used
abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay
sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an
excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded
in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues

[Trace]

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have? WHY?

So far, no one has given a real explanation. All I've seen are
threats, name calling, and other leftist tactics.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Post by Trace
WHY?

Why what?

Post by Trace
So far, no one has given a real explanation.

But when you read, say, my last posting, it just seems to go over your
tiny little head....read it again....

Post by Trace
All I've seen are
threats, name calling, and other leftist tactics.

Mostly in your imagination...


Dr. Barry Worthington

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be? Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

[Patrick Henry]

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be? Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

Oh another wing nut idiot who doesn't understand that the Constitution
doesn't grant rights nor does it enumerate all of the rights that we
have.

Your mind is too small to wonder. Do all cons hate freedom?

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:25:30 -0000, Patrick Henry

Post by Patrick Henry

Post by The Wolf With the Red Roses
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be? Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

Oh another wing nut idiot who doesn't understand that the Constitution
doesn't grant rights nor does it enumerate all of the rights that we
have.

And another wing nut who apparently can't read, as it is rather
obvious that I didn't say Constitution to those with at least a Third
Grade Reading Level. I'll leave to the audience to determine who is
the bigger Wing Nut on that one.

Oh and BTW being the Constitutional Scholar that you are I guess I
need not remind you that Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the
United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights,
addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in
the Constitution. Yup there is that pesky "enumerated" word again.
Oh and I did specifically bring up the Constitution this time.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On 24 Aug, 01:22, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be?

Well, civil marriage for a start....

Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

The 'founding documents' enumerate only general rights. Neither the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (including the Bill of
Rights) say anything about marriage, including heterosexual marriage.
There is a little something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" though, just in case you have forgotten.

Now, unless you have anything sensible to say, please go away....

Dr. Barry Worthington

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[The Wolf With the Red Roses]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:49:13 -0700, "Dr. Barry Worthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 24 Aug, 01:22, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be?

Well, civil marriage for a start....

Really I have a "Right" to that? Exactly where is the "Right" granted
& conveyed in our founding documents? Also, if that is the case; Why
did I have to get "Permission" from my Unit Commander to get Married
and why are certain states allowed to put age restrictions &
incestuous constraints on said "Right"? Oh and require the paying of
fees for licenses?

Now once you get done with that one, how do you propose getting around
the pesky definition in numerous dictionary of a Marriage as: "the
social institution under which a man and woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious
ceremonies, etc. "

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

The 'founding documents' enumerate only general rights. Neither the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (including the Bill of
Rights) say anything about marriage, including heterosexual marriage.
There is a little something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" though, just in case you have forgotten.

But if we are going to use the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" argument, why can't I do any great number of things that
make me happy but have been legislated away from me or restricted by
any number of Ordinances? Is it that society also has the "Right" to
establish what it thinks is normal & acceptable?

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Now, unless you have anything sensible to say, please go away....

So is that the same thing as saying you're having a really hard time
proving your point and have no desire to be pressed into a debate
defending your stance? Gee you must really feel strongly on the
subject.

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

On 25 Aug, 03:01, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:49:13 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 24 Aug, 01:22, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be?

Well, civil marriage for a start....

Really I have a "Right" to that? Exactly where is the "Right" granted
& conveyed in our founding documents?

The 'pursuit of hapiness'?

Also, if that is the case; Why
did I have to get "Permission" from my Unit Commander to get Married

Buggered if I know.....or care...

and why are certain states allowed to put age restrictions &
incestuous constraints on said "Right"?

Well, some of us have to live in the real world.....

Oh and require the paying of
fees for licenses?

Er....you also have to pay to marry in church....

Now once you get done with that one, how do you propose getting around
the pesky definition in numerous dictionary of a Marriage as: "the
social institution under which a man and woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious
ceremonies, etc. "

What kind of person bases their ethical views upon dictionary
definitions? People who post to this n.g., it seems. I've come across
this before...it seems to be some odd American usage...

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

The 'founding documents' enumerate only general rights. Neither the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (including the Bill of
Rights) say anything about marriage, including heterosexual marriage.
There is a little something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" though, just in case you have forgotten.

But if we are going to use the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" argument, why can't I do any great number of things that
make me happy but have been legislated away from me or restricted by
any number of Ordinances? Is it that society also has the "Right" to
establish what it thinks is normal & acceptable?

Anything that does no harm to other people....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Now, unless you have anything sensible to say, please go away....

So is that the same thing as saying you're having a really hard time
proving your point and have no desire to be pressed into a debate
defending your stance? Gee you must really feel strongly on the
subject.

Actually I don't. I just think that you are beving like an idiot. I
can't debate with idiots.

Goodbye,

Dr. Barry Worthington

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Trace]

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 25 Aug, 03:01, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:49:13 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 24 Aug, 01:22, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be?

Well, civil marriage for a start....

Really I have a "Right" to that? Exactly where is the "Right" granted
& conveyed in our founding documents?

The 'pursuit of hapiness'?

Also, if that is the case; Why
did I have to get "Permission" from my Unit Commander to get Married

Buggered if I know.....or care...

and why are certain states allowed to put age restrictions &
incestuous constraints on said "Right"?

Well, some of us have to live in the real world.....

Oh and require the paying of
fees for licenses?

Er....you also have to pay to marry in church....

Now once you get done with that one, how do you propose getting around
the pesky definition in numerous dictionary of a Marriage as: "the
social institution under which a man and woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious
ceremonies, etc. "

What kind of person bases their ethical views upon dictionary
definitions? People who post to this n.g., it seems. I've come across
this before...it seems to be some odd American usage...

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

The 'founding documents' enumerate only general rights. Neither the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (including the Bill of
Rights) say anything about marriage, including heterosexual marriage.
There is a little something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" though, just in case you have forgotten.

But if we are going to use the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" argument, why can't I do any great number of things that
make me happy but have been legislated away from me or restricted by
any number of Ordinances? Is it that society also has the "Right" to
establish what it thinks is normal & acceptable?

Anything that does no harm to other people....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Now, unless you have anything sensible to say, please go away....

So is that the same thing as saying you're having a really hard time
proving your point and have no desire to be pressed into a debate
defending your stance? Gee you must really feel strongly on the
subject.

Actually I don't. I just think that you are beving like an idiot. I
can't debate with idiots.
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Barry, you have to be the queen of idiots in this group. Your
comments rarely make sense. They are usually aimed at belittling
someone with whom you disagree. Barry, you certainly do not deserve a
Dr. beside your name. Maybe you're just the Doctor of Love, right?

[Dr. Barry Worthington]

Post by Trace

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 25 Aug, 03:01, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:49:13 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
On 24 Aug, 01:22, The Wolf With the Red Roses <after-dark-

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:03:27 -0700, "Dr.BarryWorthington"

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by Trace

Post by Tracey12
As Rush has often said, Gays don't need special rights.
They already have the US Constitution.
Thats all non homosexuals have.
Why would homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?

I say again, why would any homosexual need more rights than the rest
of us Americans have?

They are not asking for more rights. Only equal rights....

Really? Which ones would those be?

Well, civil marriage for a start....

Really I have a "Right" to that? Exactly where is the "Right" granted
& conveyed in our founding documents?

The 'pursuit of hapiness'?

Also, if that is the case; Why
did I have to get "Permission" from my Unit Commander to get Married

Buggered if I know.....or care...

and why are certain states allowed to put age restrictions &
incestuous constraints on said "Right"?

Well, some of us have to live in the real world.....

Oh and require the paying of
fees for licenses?

Er....you also have to pay to marry in church....

Now once you get done with that one, how do you propose getting around
the pesky definition in numerous dictionary of a Marriage as: "the
social institution under which a man and woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious
ceremonies, etc. "

What kind of person bases their ethical views upon dictionary
definitions? People who post to this n.g., it seems. I've come across
this before...it seems to be some odd American usage...

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington

Exactly which "Rights" as
articulated & enumerated in the USofA's founding documents do I have
that Gay's don't? Wondering minds & all that.

The 'founding documents' enumerate only general rights. Neither the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (including the Bill of
Rights) say anything about marriage, including heterosexual marriage.
There is a little something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" though, just in case you have forgotten.

But if we are going to use the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" argument, why can't I do any great number of things that
make me happy but have been legislated away from me or restricted by
any number of Ordinances? Is it that society also has the "Right" to
establish what it thinks is normal & acceptable?

Anything that does no harm to other people....

Post by Dr. Barry Worthington
Now, unless you have anything sensible to say, please go away....

So is that the same thing as saying you're having a really hard time
proving your point and have no desire to be pressed into a debate
defending your stance? Gee you must really feel strongly on the
subject.

Actually I don't. I just think that you are beving like an idiot. I
can't debate with idiots.
Goodbye,
Dr.BarryWorthington

--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Barry, you have to be the queen of idiots in this group. Your
comments rarely make sense.

Well...I suppose that you have to have a modicum of intelligence to
comprehend them.....

Post by Trace
They are usually aimed at belittling
someone with whom you disagree.

In your case, Trace, that is very necessary....

Post by Trace
Barry, you certainly do not deserve a
Dr. beside your name.

It's in front of my name, Trace. It's a title....

Post by Trace
Maybe you're just the Doctor of Love, right?

"All that will remain of us is love..."

Phillip Larkin

Dr. Barry Worthington



- Hide quoted text -

Post by Trace
- Show quoted text -