Solution for Mass. Gay Marriage problem . . .



On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:35:40 GMT, Jd <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dennis Kemmerer, wrote:
>
>>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> fLight Templar, a.k.a. "Light Templar" <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> >>
>>> >> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> >> > I look upon "marriage" as being a state of union with religious
>>> >> significance,
>>> >> > something different than a "civil union" which is a state recognized
>>by
>>> >> the
>>> >> > government. I'm a strong proponent of keeping our government separate
>>> >(as
>>> >> > much as is possible) from religions with their myriad of diversities.
>>> >>
>>> >> I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
>>that
>>> >> gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
>>> >
>>> >It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a
>>seperate
>>> >but equal status. It would be far easier for churches to change what
>>they
>>> >currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony" than it would be for the Government to change. So,
>>> >why don't the churches change?
>>>
>>> Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
>>>
>>> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
>>
>>Even when a man and woman do it?
>>
>>[snip repeated bible thumping]
>
>Men and women don't do it. Not real men and women anyhow. The men and women you are referring to
>only do it because they have undersized

>
>Let's face it folks, I'm right and you know it.
>
>Jd
>

Did God give you big, fat, juicy lips? If so, let's you and me get

thinking about it!
 
>>So your an idiot that dreams of living in a theocracy. Easily ignored and consigned to the closet
>>of historical idiocy.
>>
>
>
> Yes. I see you are ignoring me quite effectively.
>
> Jd
>
> "But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." - Jesus (Matthew26:32)

Maybe he is an Atheist thus making your posts null and void. Get used to it, not everyone is going
to crumble before you because you happen to wave a book of fairy tales around.

Matt
 
Jd wrote:

> Dennis Kemmerer, wrote:
>
>>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>fLight Templar, a.k.a. "Light Templar" <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>"James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote

<snip>

>>>>currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony" than it would be for the Government to change. So,
>>>>why don't the churches change?
>>>
>>>Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
>>>
>>>But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
>>
>>Even when a man and woman do it?
>>
>>[snip repeated bible thumping]
>
> Men and women don't do it.

Sorry to burst your bubble... but studies show that the vast majority

<snip>

> Let's face it folks, I'm right and you know it.

Let's face it folks... He's ignorant and we know it!

--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+ This represents my personal opinion
and NOT Company policy Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail

+================================================================+
 
"Howd E. Doodat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:32:00 GMT, Letao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It's not the words, marriage or civil union, that get them upset. They're upset because they have
> >to share them with their fellow citizens. The fags are icky. They don't even want to listen to
> >the arguments put forth in court:
>
> "Icky"? The fags are "ICKY"???
>
> He..hehe..hehee...heeheeheh You are SO cute!!!

Typographical error, no doubt. Sticky is, I'm sure, what he meant. I get sticky all the time .
. . --Tock
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Howd E. Doodat <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:32:00 GMT, Letao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It's not the words, marriage or civil union, that get them upset. They're upset because they have
> >to share them with their fellow citizens. The fags are icky. They don't even want to listen to
> >the arguments put forth in court:
>
> "Icky"? The fags are "ICKY"???
>
> He..hehe..hehee...heeheeheh You are SO cute!!!

Thanks. Although Romney didn't actually say "icky" we both know that's what he means.
 
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:11:55 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote (in article
<[email protected]>):

> It all comes down to semantics. The thing is that 210 years of semantics in the United States
> allow for civil marriage and place no obligation on marriage as a religious event.

And, given the eloquence of some of the postings in this thread, the next thing you know you'll be
labeled as "anti-semantic!"

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
 
Matt wrote:

>> Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
>>
>> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
>>
>> Jd
>>
>> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
>
>Since this is from the old testament, and it has been clearly established that the bible is NOT the
>word of god; you cannot claim that the the above quotation is the official standing of JC or God. I
>think I would rather wait till I get to the pearly gates of heaven before assuming that something
>like the above is correct.
>
>btw, I actually prefer the literal translation:
>
>Leviticus 18:22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
>
>Matt

Being a Christian, I prefer to be thought of as one who represents Christ, who not only verified the
O.T. but also verified that large chunks of it testified of Him.

And he said unto them, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that
all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in
the psalms, concerning me". - Jesus (Luke 24:44)

Jd
 
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:48:23 -0600, James L. Ryan wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:11:55 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> It all comes down to semantics. The thing is that 210 years of semantics in the United States
>> allow for civil marriage and place no obligation on marriage as a religious event.
>
> And, given the eloquence of some of the postings in this thread, the next thing you know you'll be
> labeled as "anti-semantic!"
>
> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>

The first thing would, then, be admitting one has a problem.

Then - and only then - could the diagramming of sentences begin.

Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Remember that sticks and stones may be used for capital pinishment for religious crimes.
 
In article <[email protected]> Gray Shockley <gray-
[email protected]> writes: < <On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:48:23 -0600, James L. Ryan wrote <(in message
<[email protected]>): < <> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:11:55 -0600,
Gregory Gadow wrote (in article <> <[email protected]>): <> <>> It all comes down to
semantics. The thing is that 210 years of semantics <>> in the United States allow for civil
marriage and place no obligation on <>> marriage as a religious event. <> <> And, given the
eloquence of some of the postings in this thread, the next <> thing you know you'll be labeled as
"anti-semantic!" <> <> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft <> < <The first thing would, then, be
admitting one has a problem. < <Then - and only then - could the diagramming of sentences begin.

But "anti-semant" lacks a certain crackle. Why, you goddam anti-semant you. See? I think it's the
palatization of the final consonant. Kind of like a silencer on a pistol.

-- cary
 
Jd <[email protected]> wrote:
>Being a Christian, I prefer to be thought of as one who represents Christ, who not only verified
>the O.T. but also verified that large chunks of it testified of Him.

Christians do not "represent Christ"; it is beyond the power of mortal men to represent the Living
God. Anyone who claims to do so, is more affiliated with Satan than with Christ.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email protected] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own;
I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:13:24 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Are there any adults here in the NG's? I'm getting so bored by these teeny bopper whiggerized
>> faggots I think I'll go wath TV.
>
>
>"Whiggerized?" What is that? --Tock
>

It must be something you do to wath TV.
 
James L. Ryan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:31 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
> <[email protected]>):
> >
> > "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> >> I look upon "marriage" as being a state of union with religious significance, something
> >> different than a "civil union" which is a state recognized by the government. I'm a strong
> >> proponent of keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from religions with their
> >> myriad of diversities.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying that gays gotta have the
> > right to marry and not just civil unions?
> >
> > -Tock
>
> We've got something of a Catch-22 here. Because "marriage" (traditionally between one man and
> one woman)

marry.

they loved if they could.

discovered in mental institutions. None of these options facilitate

and wish to make a life-time committment.

In my father's time there was a tradition that no matter how bad things got, you never abanded one's
wife or children. Affairs, and all sorts of unusual conduct may have existed but abandoning ones
spouse and children was not one of them. That, of course, has now changed to some degree.

is currently so ingrained into our legal
> system it is not surprising that gay organizations feel that gay couples should be treated
> equally.
All citizens of any country should be treated equally, regardless of

If, as I suggest, marriage as such is considered a
> relationship independent of the government,

You suggest as may your neighbour, but both you and your neighbour may be narrow minded, have
thinking that is restriced by religous beliefs that others may not accept, sanction, or feel is fair
to other members of society to forced upon them.

> and that government recognized "civil unions" be that which determine benefits and
> responsibilities, then we hopefully will have ended a contentious area.
>

There is little doubt that all governments are capable of right laws, legislation and tax codes to
keep countries running successfully. Issuing marriage licences for all citizens can be part of the
structure and fun.

> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
 
Jd wrote:
>
> Dennis Kemmerer, wrote:
>
> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> fLight Templar, a.k.a. "Light Templar" <[email protected]>, wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> >> > I look upon "marriage" as being a state of union with religious
> >> >> significance,
> >> >> > something different than a "civil union" which is a state recognized
> >by
> >> >> the
> >> >> > government. I'm a strong proponent of keeping our government separate
> >> >(as
> >> >> > much as is possible) from religions with their myriad of diversities.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
> >that
> >> >> gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
> >> >
> >> >It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a
> >seperate
> >> >but equal status. It would be far easier for churches to change what
> >they
> >> >currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony" than it would be for the Government to change. So,
> >> >why don't the churches change?
> >>
> >> Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
> >>
> >> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
> >
> >Even when a man and woman do it?
> >
> >[snip repeated bible thumping]
>
> Men and women don't do it. Not real men and women anyhow.

Who is anyone to define what a real man and real woman is/are and also to say that men and women
don't do it. One doesn't have to be very well read to realize that just isn't the case.

The men and
> women you are referring to only do it because they have undersized

>
> Let's face it folks, I'm right and you know it.
>
> Jd

You are most certainly right to hold your opinion, but that neither makes or opinion correct or
stastically valid.
 
Jd wrote:
>
> <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
> >Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
> >licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
> >affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
> >everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
> >all the rights of legally recognized couples.
>

God.

And what do you think about the right of a women to become a Priest? Are women any less capable?

And what do you think of women who indulge oral upon their spouse which

>
> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
>
> Jd
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> "Gregory Gadow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "James L. Ryan" wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:46:07 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
> > > <[email protected]>):
> > >
> > > [responding to my suggesting that "civil unions" could be amongst any
> number
> > > of persons wishing to share what I call "responsibilities and
> benefits."]
> > >
> > > > Actually, I agree . . . no reason why not. Something like that would
> be
> > > > useful for, say, three people who started a business, and wanted a
> simpler
> > > > way to transfer property in case someone died. Has a lot of
> potential
> > > > uses, I suppose . . .
> > >
> > > I look upon "marriage" as being a state of union with religious
> significance,
> > > something different than a "civil union" which is a state recognized by
> the
> > > government.
> >
> > ALL marriages are civil unions under the law. While states recognize
> religious
> > marriage, there is no obligation in any state for religion to play any
> part in
> > marriage; the United States constitution forbids it.
> >
> > > I'm a strong proponent of keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from
> > > religions with their myriad of diversities.
> >
> > Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?
>
> Some states allow non-clergy people to officiate at a marriage . . . In California, anyone can pay
> $25 and get a permit to do one marriage. In Colorado, the couple can solemnize the relationship
> themselves while filling out the marriage license.
>
> IMHO, though, states should stop calling what they do "marriage" because marriage is a
> religious thing

Many words in the English language have many meanings. Classically "gay" is one of them. "Marriage"
is another. Marriage is and always has been a commitment of two people to live together in a loving
relationship sanctioned by the church if they wish or not or sanctioned by the government if they
wish or not, hopefully until death do they part. Over time some churches and now some governments
are beginning to

a person's right or a couple's right to say or believe they are marrried. The most any outsider
can do is sanction it or denounce it but neither of those acts take away from the existance of
the marriage.

There are many couples that are married but manage to fight, injure and kill each other every
year. While all of those marriages are sanctioned by the state and the church, hopefully their
conduct is not!

> and governments have no legitimate business doing religious things.

No government issues a religious or church marriage licence. Those little documents are issued by
the minister, pastor or priest than and now.

But governments have been and continue to be permitted to issue licences and marriage certificates
to people who belong to a religion who have said no becuase they were previously divorced or to
others who have no religious beliefs, and, of course, others who fall in between.
 
Jd wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
>
> >> Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
> >>
> >> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
> >>
> >> Jd
> >>
> >> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> >
> >Since this is from the old testament, and it has been clearly established that the bible is NOT
> >the word of god; you cannot claim that the the above quotation is the official standing of JC or
> >God. I think I would rather wait till I get to the pearly gates of heaven before assuming that
> >something like the above is correct.
> >
> >btw, I actually prefer the literal translation:
> >
> >Leviticus 18:22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination
> >it [is].
> >
> >Matt
>
> Being a Christian,

I like that. "Being a Christian." It means you have chosen to be a Christian. You have chosen one
of the religions or docutrines that suites your lifestyle of being a Christian. Be it Catholic or
a Quaker, it is still very small segment of the world's population in terms of beliefs, religious
or othewise.

I prefer to be thought of as one who represents
> Christ, who not only verified the O.T. but also verified that large chunks of it testified of Him.
>
> And he said unto them, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that
> all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in
> the psalms, concerning me". - Jesus (Luke 24:44)
>
> Jd
 
Jd wrote:
>
> <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote

> >>
> >> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
> >
> >
> >
> >Congratulations. You're welcome to your opinion. If you were a church preacher, you'd have the
> >freedom not to perform a marriage ceremony for gays and lesbians, and I'd cheerfully support your
> >right not to do so. In fact, I'd excoriate gays and lesbians who criticised you for exercising
> >your rights not to marry them, then we could trot down to the local greasy spoon and I'd buy you
> >breakfast and we could have a lively chat.
> >
> >But when a gay couple want to have their relationship recognized the same way as straight
> >couples, the issue concerns only government agencies, and not religious organizations.
>
> God has given us the duty of governing ourselves.

Well, sir, who are you including in the "us." You again are free to interpret what God as told you
and those that follow you. But both you and I know that you are not in a position to interpret what
God has said to me or how I should interpret it.

>
> >But let me ask you this . . . If you want other people to abide by Leviticus 18:22, would you
> >also say that people should abide by Leviticus 20:13, which says that gay people have to be put
> >to death? If not, why should people abide by some parts of the Bible and not others? --Just
> >curious . . . --Tock
>
> >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
> >committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
>
> God has also given us behavioral guidelines.

You are right that God has given us all behavioral guidelines. I don't know what behavioral
guidelines he has given you and which of those guidelines you follow or don't follow. I mean by that
that there is only one Pope for Catholics and many Catholics interpret and adopt different
guidelines in spite of their being only one Catholic doctrine. I know the guidelines that God has
given me and they would at first blush appear to be slightly differnt than yours in spite of us both
trying to be and live good Christian lives!

>

> judgement of God?
>
> Jd

I am not sure who if anyone or any motal God has assigned the duty of punishing others including
homoseuals.

1 percent or less of the universe's population, it is in deed small and that the majoritiy of the
citizens of the universe would be

impossible task and that is proven out daily by the crime and destruction of the world.

I have enjoyed my life and tried to be a good person everyday and it the judgement of God is
anything like have experienced daily, then I welcome it.
 
Jd wrote:
>
> Light Templar wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Light Templar, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> <[email protected]>, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus
> >> >> >> 18:22)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Congratulations. You're welcome to your opinion. If you were a
> >church
> >> >> >preacher, you'd have the freedom not to perform a marriage ceremony
> >for
> >> >gays
> >> >> >and lesbians, and I'd cheerfully support your right not to do so. In
> >> >fact,
> >> >> >I'd excoriate gays and lesbians who criticised you for exercising your rights not to marry
> >> >> >them, then we could trot down to the local greasy
> >> >spoon
> >> >> >and I'd buy you breakfast and we could have a lively chat.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But when a gay couple want to have their relationship recognized the
> >same
> >> >> >way as straight couples, the issue concerns only government agencies,
> >and
> >> >> >not religious organizations.
> >> >>
> >> >> God has given us the duty of governing ourselves.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So go govern yourself, and leave others to govern themselves.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >But let me ask you this . . . If you want other people to abide by Leviticus 18:22, would
> >> >> >you also
> >say
> >> >> >that people should abide by Leviticus 20:13, which says that gay
> >people
> >> >have
> >> >> >to be put to death? If not, why should people abide by some parts of the Bible and not
> >> >others?
> >> >> >--Just curious . . . --Tock
> >> >>
> >> >> >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
> >woman,
> >> >both of them
> >> >> >have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
> >their
> >> >> >blood shall be upon them.
> >> >>
> >> >> God has also given us behavioral guidelines.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Which are not relevant to the legal issues.
> >> >

> >> >> judgement of God?
> >> >
> >> >It's not your place to punish anyone.
> >> >
> >> Right. I'm not in the government. Are you?
> >
> >It's not the government's place to punish anyone that hasn't committed a crime.
>

> governments job to impose the death penalty upon convicted murders.
>

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. But here in Canada

in Canada the government takes the position not to impose the death penalty upon convicted murders
but rehabilitates them which may include incarceration.

>

> "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
> (Genesis 9:6)
>
> Your false dichotomy whereby ye seek to portray laws of morality as being "religious" laws and
> therefore unapplicable across the land, is merely a childish distraction.
>
> Are there any adults here in the NG's? I'm getting so bored by these teeny bopper whiggerized
> faggots I think I'll go wath TV.
>
> Jd

Is there a greater sin than calling someone a ******? How can a Christian use such language? How can
a Christian conduct himself in the eyes of God or believe he has any right to judge others when he
uses derogatory terms to reference other people? How can a good Christian lose his patience? Is not
God there beside him to help him in moments of trouble, in moments of stress?

>
> "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come
> against Jerusalem." (Zechariah 12:9)
 
[email protected] wrote:

>It would make every couple not only "civil unioned," but equally treated under the law. Send the
>marriage ritual back to the folks who do rituals, and make everyone happy. Yes? No?
>
>
I do believe -- pardon -- that the "religious" folks have already indicated that they don't like
that one bit.

--
Opposite me sat General Jorge Videla, one of the leaders of the Argentine junta. He was cheerfully
explaining why it was that so many Argentines had gone missing during the period of his rule. ...
"Those who offend against the Western, Christian way of life," he said, "are as dangerous as those
who throw bombs." -- from an interview conducted by Christopher Hitchens in 1995
 
Gray Shockley wrote:

>If we married hets have to pay the "marriage penalty" (income tax) then why should homos not have
>to pay that same penalty?
>
It'd just be a "civil union penalty." :)

--
Opposite me sat General Jorge Videla, one of the leaders of the Argentine junta. He was cheerfully
explaining why it was that so many Argentines had gone missing during the period of his rule. ...
"Those who offend against the Western, Christian way of life," he said, "are as dangerous as those
who throw bombs." -- from an interview conducted by Christopher Hitchens in 1995
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back