Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license?



<Juan Horovitz> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:11:42 GMT, "Light Templar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><Juan Horovitz> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:04:36 GMT, "Light Templar" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><Juan Horovitz> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:07:20 GMT, "Light Templar" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><Juan Horovitz> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 00:31:02 GMT, "Light Templar" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><Juan Horovitz> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:12:10 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> ><Juan Horovitz> wrote
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >I hate to break it to ya, mon ami, but there never was a
real
> >> >> >Moses.
> >> >> >> >> >The
> >> >> >> >> >> >whole story in Exodus is a work of fiction.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I would be pleased to know how you can know what is fiction
> >and
> >> >what
> >> >> >> >> >> is not with regards to those times.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Ok, check this out . . . First, in the 1st chapter of Exodus it says that there were
more
> >> >> >Hebrews
> >> >> >> >in
> >> >> >> >> >Egypt than there were Egyptians:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >[8] Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not
> >> >Joseph.
> >> >> >> >> >[9] And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the
> >children
> >> >of
> >> >> >> >> >Israel are more and mightier than we:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >And of course, we know that the Bible says that Moses took
all
> >the
> >> >> >> >Hebrews
> >> >> >> >> >out of Egypt and in the process devestated the Egyptian army.
> >The
> >> >> >thing
> >> >> >> >> >is, though, that the only document where this story is found
is
> >in
> >> >the
> >> >> >> >> >Bible. The event, according to Bible experts, supposedly
> >happened
> >> >> >> >around
> >> >> >> >> >1500 BC, but the jillions of archeologists that have been
> >digging
> >> >in
> >> >> >> >Egypt,
> >> >> >> >> >while they have a pretty clear picture of all the events in
> >Egypt
> >> >from
> >> >> >> >way
> >> >> >> >> >before 1500 BC to current time, there is absolutely no
reference
> >> >made
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >> >catastrophic events outlined in the Bible. No reference to
> >losing
> >> >> >over
> >> >> >> >> >half its population, no reference to the army's destruction.
> >And
> >> >> >there
> >> >> >> >is
> >> >> >> >> >no reference to the event found in neighboring areas of the
> >middle
> >> >> >east,
> >> >> >> >> >either. If the event had occurred, there would definitely
be
> >some
> >> >> >> >> >corroborating evidence found by the archeologists. Had
Egypt's
> >> >army
> >> >> >been
> >> >> >> >> >wiped out, the first thing the neighboring empires would have
> >done
> >> >is
> >> >> >> >sweep
> >> >> >> >> >in and take control, taking advantage of the situation.
But,
> >> >that
> >> >> >> >didn't
> >> >> >> >> >happen. So, since the cataclysmic events outlined in the Bible are
not
> >> >> >> >confirmed
> >> >> >> >> >by evidence, and since people have a predisposition to making
up
> >> >> >stories,
> >> >> >> >> >it is highly probable that the biblical story of the Exodus
is
> >> >> >fiction.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >And if the book of Exodus is fiction (as we know it is), how
> >much
> >> >do
> >> >> >you
> >> >> >> >> >suppose the rest of it is fiction as well? Probably most of
it.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >If it's any consolation to you, though, it means that no
matter
> >how
> >> >> >vile
> >> >> >> >and
> >> >> >> >> >contemptable you may be, you will not be going to Hell after
> >all.
> >> >> >But,
> >> >> >> >you
> >> >> >> >> >will have to live with yourself for the time being, and
that's
> >> >> >probably
> >> >> >> >> >enough punishment . . .
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In other words, you don't know for sure and you have no means
of
> >> >> >> >> providing any sort of proof that what you "suspect" is true.
Not
> >a
> >> >> >> >> very stable platform from which to launch a religious
diatribe.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Truth is pure and exact. There are no tolerances.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >--Tock
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >He provided you with several items of evidence which you failed
to
> >> >> >provide a
> >> >> >> >rebuttal for. I will provide a few more items.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No Hebrew artifact has ever been found in Egypt, more
importantly,
> >no
> >> >> >Hebrew
> >> >> >> >artifact has ever been found in Goshen.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >After 500 years of supposed captivity, there was no evidence of
> >> >Egyptian
> >> >> >> >influences on their language.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Slave records were meticulously kept. Everything from house
> >slaves,
> >> >to
> >> >> >> >temple slaves to slaves or the Master Builder. None have ever
been
> >> >found
> >> >> >> >naming a single Hebrew slave from that time period while slaves
> >from
> >> >many
> >> >> >> >other nations, and of course their domestic slaves, have been
found
> >a
> >> >> >> >plenty.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It is believed by many historians that the story of Exodus was
> >> >contrived
> >> >> >by
> >> >> >> >Hebew elders to convince later generations that they had been
taken
> >> >slave
> >> >> >in
> >> >> >> >Egypt, rather than what actually happened, namely that they had
> >been
> >> >> >taken
> >> >> >> >into captivity to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BCE, after a
> >rather
> >> >> >> >humiliating defeat. Those that returned from captivity, came
back
> >> >> >speaking
> >> >> >> >Aramaic, and this continued to be their native toungue.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Do you have a reasoned rebuttal?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Do you have any proof that what you claim is true beyond any reasonable doubt?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I have given you several pieces of evidence. Do you have a
> >reasonable
> >> >> >rebuttal?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You have quoted the opinions of other.
> >> >
> >> >I have quoted archeological findings, and points of evidence, not
> >opinions.
> >> >
> >> >That is not evidence it's
> >> >> opinion. Do you have any proof that what you claim is true beyond
any
> >> >> reasonable doubt?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Do you have a reasoned rebuttal? Do you even know what a reasoned
> >rebuttal
> >> >is?
> >>
> >>
> >> You have provided no evidence to support your claim,
> >
> >
> >I have supplied a great deal of evidence. Your acceptance of it is not relevant. Do you have a
> >reasoned rebuttal or not? A yes or no answer
is
> >all that is required.
>
>
>
> Speculation is not evidence.

The answer is no. You are incapable of supplying a reasoned rebuttal. Thanks, perhaps we can debate
something you can keep up with some day.
 
<Juan Horovitz> wrote >
> Speculation is not evidence. It never has been neither will it ever be. Until you do provide
> supportable evidence there is nothing to rebut and I will continue to stand on my original
> position. Confident in the fact that you haven't made any progress in your frantic effort to
> disprove its legitimacy and that you never will.

Seems to me that if there's any speculating going on around here, it's being done by the folks who
think the Biblical story of Moses and the Exodus from Egypt is fact. Hate to tell you this, but
there ain't any supportive evidence anywhere that corroborates the Exodus story. It's all a bunch of
fiction. Better luck with your next religion . . . --Tock
 
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:15:51 -0600, Juan Horovitz wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>> I have supplied a great deal of evidence. Your acceptance of it is not relevant. Do you have a
>> reasoned rebuttal or not? A yes or no answer is all that is required.
>
>
>
> Speculation is not evidence. It never has been neither will it ever be. Until you do provide
> supportable evidence there is nothing to rebut and I will continue to stand on my original
> position. Confident in the fact that you haven't made any progress in your frantic effort to
> disprove its legitimacy and that you never will.
>
>

So that's a long-winded way of saying, "No"?

So it's one for circumstantial evidence and a zero for the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart.

Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if JH is a pilot for AmericanAirlines?
 
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:05:11 -0600, Gray Shockley wrote (in article
<[email protected]>):

> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:15:51 -0600, Juan Horovitz wrote (in message
> <[email protected]>):
>
>>> I have supplied a great deal of evidence. Your acceptance of it is not relevant. Do you have a
>>> reasoned rebuttal or not? A yes or no answer is all that is required.
>>
>>
>>
>> Speculation is not evidence. It never has been neither will it ever be. Until you do provide
>> supportable evidence there is nothing to rebut and I will continue to stand on my original
>> position. Confident in the fact that you haven't made any progress in your frantic effort to
>> disprove its legitimacy and that you never will.
>>
>>
>
> So that's a long-winded way of saying, "No"?
>
>
> So it's one for circumstantial evidence and a zero for the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart.
>
> Gray Shockley -------------------------------------------------------- I wonder if JH is a pilot
> for AmericanAirlines?
>
>

At last, at last, at last..... Someone in this thread has the courtesy/decency to respond/comment by
extracting the relevant information rather than including endless lines from the preceding postings.
What a pleasurable change from most of the postings in this thread in which a few line comment is
added to seeming endless lines of babble.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
 
Juan wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 08:29:04 GMT, Ward Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:48:38 GMT, James L. Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why don't we just get the government out of the marriage game altogether and replace it with the
>>>notion of "civil union." Such a civil union would allow two or more adult persons to declare they
>>>have chosen to live in a communal state and to share benefits and responsibilities. Such a union
>>>could be anything from the "traditional" marriage of a man to a woman to two or more

>>>state once it is properly declared, and the union can be disolved with an appropriate
>>>distribution of benefits and responsibilities.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>>
>>Not a problem for me -- Most of europe and Canada have a similar arrangement
>
>
> That's a lie and you know it. Most of Europe and canada (and the rest of the world for that
> matter), have marriage laws almost identical to those of the US. You're creepy, old man.

The europeans and most of South America demand a Civil Ceremony and leave the option to the parties
to the marriage to go and get a religious ceremony. You of course are so far up yourself that you

to tell you but you live in a fantasy world. In the real world there are some 172 or there abouts
countries only one of them is the USA and very few follow their lead. China with a population of
over 1 billion certainly does not follow the american style of marriage nor does India the second
largest country by population. In fact New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom and Canada are about
the only countries like the USA where a civil ceremony is not required before a religious ceremony.
You're a creep, you crass and callow youth. Why don't you listen to your elders, you just might
learn something.
>
> --
> Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:17:25 GMT, Ward Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: We HAVE earned a
> status as worthy as Liza Minelli or the Gabor whores. (In reference to himself and his canadian
> styled HUSBAND!)
>
>
>
>>ward
>
>

--
Bernard Hubbard Australian, Gay, Green and Proud. If you find yourself staring at a carton of orange
juice because the package says concentrate, you must be a redneck.