pn 27002 relay?

[Kerry Stottlemyer]

Tell me how a homosexual getting married effects your rights. How does it effect your civil rights, your financial well being? Don't go the religion route because that is not the issue. the issue is a group of people are being denied rights due to the FACT that marriage is a legal contract as much as it is a religious one. and in this day and age it's the legality of marriage that is preventing them from having the same rights and privileges as any other married couple. Regardless of what your religion says is right or wrong religion has no place in a court room. You can't make a logical decision based on the emotional influence of your religion.

[fasteddiecopeman]

Kerry, By allowing non man-woman unions to be called 'marriage' undermines the whole basis upon which our society is based - the family - which exists to produce and nurture children. Despite that some man-woman unions don't produce offspring doesn't change the fact that they CAN. Any same-sex union can NOT produce children, so it (that union) is SOMETHING... but it is definitely NOT marriage. (To repeat an old saying: A rose by any other name....)

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Kerry Stottlemyer" wrote: > > Tell me how a homosexual getting married effects your rights. How does it effect your > civil rights, your financial well being? > Don't go the religion route because that is not the issue. > the issue is a group of people are being denied rights due to the FACT that marriage is > a legal contract as much as it is a religious one. and in this day and age it's the legality > of marriage that is preventing them from having the same rights and privileges as any > other married couple. I'm pretty sure that some activists are preparing to have other definitions included as marriage. What would you say to someone wanting to marry an animal? Then they TOO could claim the same rights as any other married couple. At what point do you say "Enough"? > Regardless of what your religion says is right or wrong religion has no place in a court room. > You can't make a logical decision based on the emotional influence of your religion. Think you are WAY wrong here: our whole Western system of laws and jurisprudence is based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic (based upon RELIGION, so religion DOES have a place in the courtroom). Have you ever heard of 'Sharia" law? It's what Muslim countries have, and can include beheadings in public, stonings, killing of family members for 'honor'. The French have the "Napoleanic Code" which does NOT consider you innocent till proven guilty. Would you REALLY not want laws based on religion? Cheers, Ed

[Calvin Armstrong]

Okay... it's an attack that I take personally. I've just been compared to something, heck, I'm told that I'm worse than something, that kills thousands of people in this country every year. I've never killed anyone. Over the last century smoking killed more than 100 million people -- hey, I'm worse than Hitler! The religion argument is irrelevant -- for one, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Our basis of law *was* JudeoChristianic but anyone who knows anything about the law knows it's developed far from its roots. I could care less if it's called "marriage" or anything else just so long as all the legal/government privileges of marriage are carried with it. The whole "dress up all pretty and stand amongst the flowers" part of marriage, I dunno.. seems kinda gay to me. Cal On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Tengai Mark Van Horn wrote:

> At 6:32 PM -0700 5/21/08, LD wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogro ups.com, "Russell Scott" > > wrote: > > > Personally, I could care less what you talk about, as long as its > > NKLR, and no personal attacks. > > > > > > As for homosexuality, it's a lot less healthy both mentally and > > physically than smoking cigarettes. > > > >Would love to see this thread wrapped up, but could not resist > >commenting on this bit of hypocrisy. I expect many would consider > >your comment a personal attack if not on themself, then on a friend > >or relative. This is the kind of couching behind the so called > >teachings of the Lord crap that puts a reasonable person off > >organized religeon. > > Then you don't know what a personal attack is. > Only a person with a fragile ego or a chip on his shoulder would > think "I hate jerks" and "You're a jerk" mean the same thing. > > Mark > >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[jokerloco9@aol.com]

What does "it's called "marriage" or anything else just so long as all the legal/government privileges of marriage are " mean?? I guess I am trying to figure out what the legal/government privelages are? Seems like much adoo about nothing. If a marriage works, great. But under the same conditions, not being married would have been just as successful. But if the marriage doesn't work, you will find out that all of the "legal/government privelages" will be the biggest mistake of your life. Most would say something about morals about not living together unmarried. Or that parents should be married while raising kids. Is it right or wrong? Depends on your morals. Most would say you should be married. In the end, who cares about you except you. Is gay right or wrong? Depends on your morals. Most people would say it is wrong. In the end, who cares about you except you. Now can we get off this stupid topic and get on to KLR related info. How about a good oil thread???? Jeff A20 In a message dated 5/22/2008 5:05:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sig225@... writes: Okay... it's an attack that I take personally. I've just been compared to something, heck, I'm told that I'm worse than something, that kills thousands of people in this country every year. I've never killed anyone. Over the last century smoking killed more than 100 million people -- hey, I'm worse than Hitler! The religion argument is irrelevant -- for one, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Our basis of law *was* JudeoChristianic but anyone who knows anything about the law knows it's developed far from its roots. I could care less if it's called "marriage" or anything else just so long as all the legal/government privileges of marriage are carried with it. The whole "dress up all pretty and stand amongst the flowers" part of marriage, I dunno.. seems kinda gay to me. Cal On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Tengai Mark Van Horn wrote:

> At 6:32 PM -0700 5/21/08, LD wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogro ups.com, "Russell Scott" > > wrote: > > > Personally, I could care less what you talk about, as long as its > > NKLR, and no personal attacks. > > > > > > As for homosexuality, it's a lot less healthy both mentally and > > physically than smoking cigarettes. > > > >Would love to see this thread wrapped up, but could not resist > >commenting on this bit of hypocrisy. I expect many would consider > >your comment a personal attack if not on themself, then on a friend > >or relative. This is the kind of couching behind the so called > >teachings of the Lord crap that puts a reasonable person off > >organized religeon. > > Then you don't know what a personal attack is. > Only a person with a fragile ego or a chip on his shoulder would > think "I hate jerks" and "You're a jerk" mean the same thing. > > Mark > >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] **************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Calvin Armstrong]

Well, for one, if my partner goes off his Honda (yeah, I know) I can be refused entrance to his hospital room nor can I make any decisions on his care. Health insurance - I couldn't be involved with his plan. Marriage credit for life/car/bike insurance (I would get single male pricing instead of the reduction for being married). Social security benefits/pension plans. Estate tax... I would have to pay anything I inherit since we're not married. Adoption/foster care... I would be considered a single parent. The morality issue can be filed along with the religious ones, since they are different based on your philosophy. This is merely a legal/government proclamation. Cal.

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:51 PM, wrote: > What does "it's called "marriage" or anything else just so long as > all the legal/government privileges of marriage are " mean?? > > I guess I am trying to figure out what the legal/government privelages > are? > > Seems like much adoo about nothing. If a marriage works, great. But under > the same conditions, not being married would have been just as successful. > > But if the marriage doesn't work, you will find out that all of the > "legal/government privelages" will be the biggest mistake of your life. > > Most would say something about morals about not living together unmarried. > Or that parents should be married while raising kids. Is it right or > wrong? Depends on your morals. Most would say you should be married. In > the end, who cares about you except you. > > Is gay right or wrong? Depends on your morals. Most people would say it > is wrong. In the end, who cares about you except you. > > Now can we get off this stupid topic and get on to KLR related info. > > How about a good oil thread???? > > Jeff A20 > > > > > In a message dated 5/22/2008 5:05:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > sig225@... writes: > > Okay... it's an attack that I take personally. I've just been compared > to > something, heck, I'm told that I'm worse than something, that kills > thousands of people in this country every year. I've never killed anyone. > Over the last century smoking killed more than 100 million people -- hey, > I'm worse than Hitler! > The religion argument is irrelevant -- for one, Jesus never said anything > about homosexuality. Our basis of law *was* JudeoChristianic but anyone who > knows anything about the law knows it's developed far from its roots. > I could care less if it's called "marriage" or anything else just so long > as > all the legal/government privileges of marriage are carried with it. The > whole "dress up all pretty and stand amongst the flowers" part of marriage, > I dunno.. seems kinda gay to me. > Cal > > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Tengai Mark Van Horn tengai650@... > wrote: > > > At 6:32 PM -0700 5/21/08, LD wrote: > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogro ups.com, "Russell Scott" > > > wrote: > > > > Personally, I could care less what you talk about, as long as its > > > NKLR, and no personal attacks. > > > > > > > > As for homosexuality, it's a lot less healthy both mentally and > > > physically than smoking cigarettes. > > > > > >Would love to see this thread wrapped up, but could not resist > > >commenting on this bit of hypocrisy. I expect many would consider > > >your comment a personal attack if not on themself, then on a friend > > >or relative. This is the kind of couching behind the so called > > >teachings of the Lord crap that puts a reasonable person off > > >organized religeon. > > > > Then you don't know what a personal attack is. > > Only a person with a fragile ego or a chip on his shoulder would > > think "I hate jerks" and "You're a jerk" mean the same thing. > > > > Mark > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" > on AOL Foodhttp://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002> > . > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kerry Stottlemyer]

So by allowing same sex marriages straight people will convert to Homosexuals and therefore not be able to produce children???? Because that is the only way marriage could be "undermined". Allowing Homosexuals to marry will not have any effect on the "family". How will it effect you I ask again?? It will only make you upset and ticked off. The same number of straight couples will get married and the same number will get divorced give or take a few but they won't all of a sudden say "Well if the fags can marry the hell with it". Give me a break. Where is it written that the purpose of marriage is to produce children???? and don't say the bible either. Because what you are saying is a belief not a law. You believe people are to marry solely to start a family and raise children. That may have been at one time but last time I looked at the calendar it was the 21st century and marriage carries a lot of legal rights that were not in effect or in force when the concept of marriage was founded. The definition of marriage may still be the same but the legal rights that come with it, intentional or not are very real and it is these rights that should be available to anyone who so desires as long as they meet a few legal requirements i.e. age and not brother and sister and so forth. Now you can call their "union" anything you want. The simple fact of the matter is that since the government is not willing to write over 200 separate pieces of legislation they need to write one. It's the individual companies and organizations that determine who gets the benefits i.e. privileges of marriage. Call the union what you want but the only way to force these companies and organizations to recognize them and bestow these legal rights is to call it a common term the is known across the board MARRIAGE. --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "fasteddiecopeman" wrote:

> > Kerry, > By allowing non man-woman unions to be called 'marriage' undermines the whole basis > upon which our society is based - the family - which exists to produce and nurture > children. Despite that some man-woman unions don't produce offspring doesn't change > the fact that they CAN. Any same-sex union can NOT produce children, so it (that

union)

> is SOMETHING... but it is definitely NOT marriage. (To repeat an old saying: A rose by

any

> other name....) > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Kerry Stottlemyer" wrote: > > > > Tell me how a homosexual getting married effects your rights. How does it effect

your

> > civil rights, your financial well being? > > Don't go the religion route because that is not the issue. > > the issue is a group of people are being denied rights due to the FACT that marriage

is

> > a legal contract as much as it is a religious one. and in this day and age it's the

legality

> > of marriage that is preventing them from having the same rights and privileges as any > > other married couple. > > I'm pretty sure that some activists are preparing to have other definitions included as > marriage. What would you say to someone wanting to marry an animal? Then they TOO > could claim the same rights as any other married couple. At what point do you say > "Enough"? > > > Regardless of what your religion says is right or wrong religion has no place in a court > room. > > You can't make a logical decision based on the emotional influence of your religion. > > Think you are WAY wrong here: our whole Western system of laws and jurisprudence is > based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic (based upon RELIGION, so religion DOES have a > place in the courtroom). Have you ever heard of 'Sharia" law? It's what Muslim countries > have, and can include beheadings in public, stonings, killing of family members for > 'honor'. The French have the "Napoleanic Code" which does NOT consider you innocent

till

> proven guilty. > Would you REALLY not want laws based on religion? > > Cheers, > Ed >

[Kerry Stottlemyer]

> The morality issue can be filed along with the religious ones, since they > are different based on your philosophy. This is merely a legal/government > proclamation. > Cal.

And that is what I'm trying to get at. It's not religion it's legal rights and privileges

[Kerry Stottlemyer]

The really bad thing is that now they want to allow an exemption to the clerks that feel same sex marriage is immoral. OK so now if a cop feels the person deserved to die they won't charge the killer with murder.

[Dail]

----- Original Message ----- From: "Kerry Stottlemyer" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:35 PM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: California Marriage Decision NKLR > OK so now if a cop feels the person deserved to die they won't charge the > killer with murder. > > > > Cool, So now can I make a hit list?

[John Kokola]

fasteddiecopeman wrote:

> Kerry, > By allowing non man-woman unions to be called 'marriage' undermines the whole basis > upon which our society is based - the family - which exists to produce and nurture > children. Despite that some man-woman unions don't produce offspring doesn't change > the fact that they CAN. Any same-sex union can NOT produce children, so it (that union) > is SOMETHING... but it is definitely NOT marriage. (To repeat an old saying: A rose by any > other name....) >

I propose that "barren" women and men be denied permission to marry. After all, the family exists to produce and nurture children. If you can't have children, then you shouldn't be allowed to marry. Mandatory fertility testing every year shall become the law of the land to make sure that no one is abusing the sacrament of marriage.

> > I'm pretty sure that some activists are preparing to have other definitions included as > marriage. What would you say to someone wanting to marry an animal? Then they TOO > could claim the same rights as any other married couple. At what point do you say > "Enough"? > >

I too can't understand the confusion here. Really, it's simple: Women and non-landowners shouldn't be allowed to vote. Black folks belong at the back of the bus. What would you say to someone wanting an animal to vote, or taking your seat in the front of the bus? When do you say, "ENOUGH!" --John Kokola (I Am Rolling My Eyes)