On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:58:05 GMT, "(?`?.?Craig Chilton?.???)
www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x at (no spam) m.com> wrote:



MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You lost, cc.

william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.

Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.

"Separate but equal"

This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.

The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.

They're both versions of your argument.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.

Which is a stupid lie.

william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.

Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.

"Separate but equal"

This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.

The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.

They're both versions of your argument.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.

Which is a stupid lie.

MAINE Reminds the WORLD that

On Nov 6, 7:55 am, Free Lunch <lu... at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote:

Just like the government wasn't stopping anybody from getting married to
someone fro the same race. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how hard you
try to hide your bigotry behind so-called biblical justifications.

In all of Usenet, I've never seen such a concentration of bitter,
stunted, self-deluded idiots as there is in here. You try to force
an assumption that overt racism is no different than having
reservations about same sex marriage.

For the record, I don't oppose gay marriage, but the logic used for it
is

There is no logical reason to forbid gay marriage.

The tradition of marriage evolved and comes down to us from ancient
times, being rooted in the fundamental human need for sex and
procreation.

As old as it is, marriage is also bound up with religion
and cultural symbol, and has a deep meaning to the psyche of society
and to individuals that goes beyond the dictionary definition.

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.

Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.

"Separate but equal"

This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.

The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.

william mosco wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.
If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.
Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.
"Separate but equal"
This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.
"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.
The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.
They're both versions of your argument.


No they're not. Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.
Which is a stupid lie.


Why am I not surprised you don't see that?

Under your logic, it's discrimination for an individual to be
prohibited from marrying a penguin, or his cat.

How does either give informed consent and agree to contract? Fucking idiot

william mosco wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.
If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.
Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.
"Separate but equal"
This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.
"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.
The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.
They're both versions of your argument.


No they're not. Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.
Which is a stupid lie.


Why am I not surprised you don't see that?

Under your logic, it's discrimination for an individual to be
prohibited from marrying a penguin, or his cat.

How does either give informed consent and agree to contract? Fucking idiot

william mosco wrote:
martin wrote:
william mosco wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.
If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.
Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.
"Separate but equal"
This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.
"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.
The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.
They're both versions of your argument.

No they're not. Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.
Which is a stupid lie.

Why am I not surprised you don't see that?

Under your logic, it's discrimination for an individual to be
prohibited from marrying a penguin, or his cat.
How does either give informed consent and agree to contract? Fucking idiot

Irrelevant.

liar. Since when could a cat sign a legally binding contract with the
state? Fucking nutter.

I see my comments frightened you to the point where you got angry.

Not angry, you're just fucking insane.

Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.
If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.
Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.
"Separate but equal"
This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.
"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.
The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.
They're both versions of your argument.


No they're not. Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.
Which is a stupid lie.


Why am I not surprised you don't see that?

Under your logic, it's discrimination for an individual to be
prohibited from marrying a penguin, or his cat.

On Nov 5, 9:27 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what
they claim to want:  equal treatment under the law.
That is VERY easy to accomplish.  Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights
to civil unions and marriages.  Such laws most
certainly would pass in states where redefinition
of marriage failed by narrow margins.

A law would not work, since rights are inherent and
not granted by the government. What is needed is
a Constitutional ruling that gays possess the same
rights as everyone else. This is not the same as
granting a new right, merely validating the existence
of a right that was formerly violated by the government.

The necessary Constitutional basis can be found
in the 14th Amendment, which says that no state
shall deprive any person of the equal protection
of its laws.

As for same-sex marriage, it is no more a constitutional
right than heterosexual marriage.

Marriage is a religious concept

Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

martin wrote:
william mosco wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
william mosco <wm5772 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wayne <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Spammer
MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.
If one defines marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same
race, then opposing a change is indeed bigotry.

Instead, why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law.
Because the bigots oppose that.

That is VERY easy to accomplish. Just get a New
Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to civil unions and
marriages.
"Separate but equal"
This isn't true. The government is not stopping anybody from getting
married to someone from the opposite sex, gays or straights; this is a
fact.
"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same race]"."

"The government is not stopping anybody from getting married to
someone from the [same religion]"."

The usual bigotry wearing a different dress.
The race argument is bigotry since interracial marriage has been going
on for centuries. The religion argument I believe is a red herring
since I don't recall the US Government ever doing that.
They're both versions of your argument.

No they're not. Marriage between two of the same sex is a new issue.

Though I believe gays should be able to marry and suffer like the rest
of us, their cries of discrimination are false since the government
does not restrict them from getting married.
Which is a stupid lie.

Why am I not surprised you don't see that?

Under your logic, it's discrimination for an individual to be
prohibited from marrying a penguin, or his cat.
How does either give informed consent and agree to contract? Fucking idiot

Irrelevant.

I see my comments frightened you to the point where you got angry.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:27:49 -0800,
"Wayne" <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
"Wayne" <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

...NOTHING intelligent. As usual.

flush

Previous post follows:

MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

No. Marriage is marriage. It is the EXCLUSION of millions of people
from it, in an attempt to make it some sort of SPECIAL right for elitist
heterosexuals that the bigots want to preserve (and at which they will
ultimately fail).

-

Why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law. That is VERY easy to accomplish.

NOT as easy as it SHOULD be, or their being hatefully EXCLUDED
from marriage in a host of BIGOTED states would be HISTORY by now.

-

Just get a New Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to
civil unions and marriages.

Separate-but-equal is NO substitute, as the blacks knew 60 years
ago.
-

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
"Wayne" <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
"Wayne" <mygarbagecan at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

...NOTHING intelligent. As usual.

flush

Previous post follows:

MAINE Reminds the WORLD that the USA is still INFESTED
with Hateful & Ignorant BIGOTS! **SHAME** on Most of the USA!!

You make the mistake of assuming that a vote against redefinition of
marriage makes a person a bigot.

No. Marriage is marriage. It is the EXCLUSION of millions of people
from it, in an attempt to make it some sort of SPECIAL right for elitist
heterosexuals that the bigots want to preserve (and at which they will
ultimately fail).

Marriage is between a man and a woman...

Why not get homosexuals to ask for what they claim to want: equal
treatment under the law. That is VERY easy to accomplish.

NOT as easy as it SHOULD be, or their being hatefully EXCLUDED
from marriage in a host of BIGOTED states would be HISTORY by now.

Just get a New Jersey style law passed granting the same rights to
civil unions and marriages.

Separate-but-equal is NO substitute, as the blacks knew 60 years
ago. HERE is what is wrong with that hateful and ludicrous notion: