PING: William Graham!

In article icZjd.485345$mD.331311@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in 11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious.

I never said that "all" of them are. In addition, since I see no
reference whatsoever in any of the texts quoted above to any aspect of
religion, I'm wondering why on earth you posted that sentence in reply
to me, of all people.

I can't help it if my name is
Bill, and there was once a killer named, "Bill". - That doesn't make me a
killer.

I'd tend to agree. ;-)

What that has to do with anything I wrote I can't imagine.

I am conservative for a different reason, and I am conservative
about different things. As a libertarian, I am a fiscial conservative, and a
social liberal, so I am only about 1/2 conservative. Fortunately, the things
that I am most liberal about are things that are, or should be, states
rights issues, and not federal issues, so I can vote for federal Republicans
with a clear conscious. As to local issues, I frequently vote democratic,
and for liberal propositions. I voted against (for example) the proposition
on our Oregon ballot which outlawed gay marriage. And I voted for Darlene
Hooley, a Democrat, who is one of the few legislators who answers my email
rants.......

Well, thank you for this clarification of your views, at least.

Now please explain what it has to do with what I wrote.

Thanks.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

What I actually said was that I was specifically disputing your apparent
claim that the primary reason most gun control advocates recommend what
they do is to prevent accidents with firearms. While some of them use
that as their primary reason, I'm sure, the majority give the reason of
there being so many crimes committed with guns today. I also disputed
your apparent claim that most gun control advocates recommend anything
close to a complete & total ban of all types of firearms which exist
from the entire populace. Only if they were doing that, & the
government passed laws to that effect, would such as you be left
defenseless. But they aren't advocating that. That's what I'm still
waiting for you to address.

Any law that further restricts my second amendment rights, which have
already been 75% trashed, I am against. Is that what you are looking for? -
I still don't understand what exactly, you want me to say? That I am
comfortable with some partial ban on gun ownership? - I am not. that I am
comfortable with the ban on concealed carry? - I am not. I carry a concealed
gun right now, and have carried one most of my adult life. I am in violation
of the law now, and have been for most of my adult life. Are you satisfied
with that? - I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In
violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what I
have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so it
is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even if
it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes it
unconstitutional, as well as stupid.

In article if%jd.485763$mD.72009@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:nQZjd.245565$a85.179418@fed1read04...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:icZjd.485345$mD.331311@attbi_s02...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out
against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US
Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election
which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful
things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit
of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in
11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious.

That is true, but a huge portion of the population IS convinced largely
due
to religious reasons...and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone. They were widely
voting against it too, but I think they would go for the other alternative
mentioned above.

Yes. Well, the gay's don't have to tell, if they don't want to push the
issue.

Did Ms. Hughes not teach you that that plurals do not ever involve an
apostrophe, except in cases of the possessive plural?

(Remember, you started that, not me.)

You know, when I got married, nobody took us in a little room and
asked us to drop our drawers to check exactly what sex we actually were.

I'd hope not. But was there a place on the marriage license to specify
gender?

Just curious.

And
the gays can just dress one up like a man, and the other like a woman, and
have their name changed to match, and no one would be the wiser....

Hrmm. Well the drag queens of America should be flocking there, I
guess. Some of them, occasionally, seem to have "failed" in fooling
quite everyone, however.

Sort of
a, "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

And don't look too closely at the stubble, I'd venture to say. ;-)

But the point that I am trying to make is that, if they refuse to do the
above, and really want to push the issue, eventually the Supreme court will
have to throw all 11 of those bans against gay marriage out, because
marriage is a constitutional right, and gayness is not a felony,

Anymore. Or was the sodomy law always a misdemeanor? I'm not at this
moment recalling. But no matter: it was still declared unconstitutional.

To the chagrin of a larger percentage of "conservatives" than "liberals."

ergo to ban
gays from marriage is a transgression of their constitutional rights.

You know, I find it pleasant that occasionally I find myself in complete
agreement with some of your English sentences. ;-)
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article nQZjd.245565$a85.179418@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:icZjd.485345$mD.331311@attbi_s02...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out
against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US
Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election
which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit
of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in
11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious.

That is true, but a huge portion of the population IS convinced largely due
to religious reasons...

Ah, the truth, she is spoken.

Do such persons fail to recall the phrase, "separation of church &
state"? See my .sig. As an additional exercise, locate on Google the
context of the statement as it was originally posted.

(Btw, that phrase "separation of church & state" *isn't* in the
Constitution, but instead, is decidedly "anachronistic," if we're to get
right down to it.)

Nevertheless, to cite Leviticus in terms of United States law seems to
be somewhat at variance to that same Constitution.

(In case that reference is lost on some readers, Leviticus is the book
of the Old Testament which contains a certain pair of verses which are
the most frequently-cited by the so-called "religious-right" to
proclaim, "in plain black & white" [but only in certain "anachronistic"
translations] that homosexuality in & of itself is morally wrong in some
sort of "absolute" sense; pity that the verses only express a
prohibition to one gender, but not the other, & additionally contain a
word, as written in the original Hebrew, which makes the claim of
"absolute" rather questionable.)

Shall I "quote," Mark?

and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone.

I suppose they did. Within our lifetimes we will see a significant
reduction in that. It is inevitable. Why? The stunning lack of
evidence to the contrary of course, as compared to the
constantly-increasing body of evidence in support.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article arYjd.245339$a85.73375@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out
against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US
Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election
which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit
of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in 11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation, wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.

The problem is that "marriage" has already been redefined. Ever heard
of a time when the word included marriage of a man to more than one
woman simultaneously? Maybe not in the United States (except, perhaps,
temporarily in Utah) but the word has *never* had a single unchanging
definition.

Expanding it ever so slightly to include two consenting adults, period,
is no more of a stretch than expanding the right to vote to be
irrespective of race or gender.

Our country's original "definition" of the right to vote was that said
right included only one gender, but not the other.

Yet we changed that, more than 80 years ago.

Now we merely have the issue of gender again.

Remove the gender qualification, & the country has done nothing more
than it did when it did precisely the same thing with the right to vote.

Back then the "conservatives" campaigned against female suffrage just as
vigorously as they now campaign against same-sex marriage.

Yet hardly anyone today would even dare to seriously suggest that the
Constitutional amendment in that regard should be reversed.

And the latter issue has been before the public for a *shorter* time, as
a significant political issue, than female suffrage was in the analogous
political position before that amendment was finally ratified.

As in the earlier issue, it's obviously only a matter of time.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

Rob Mitchell wrote:
In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our
society, and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got
several of these 100 million safely socked away myself. I take care
to never buy one under my own name. I buy them from individuals who
advertise them in the paper, or who sell them at garage sales or
flea markets, and I never pay with anything but cash, so they are
completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and so will all of
my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor
of greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible
legal purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to
acknowledge this.

We all acknowledge that y'all wish to infringe (via "greater
restrictions") upon the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms.

Rob Mitchell wrote:
In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our
society, and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got
several of these 100 million safely socked away myself. I take care
to never buy one under my own name. I buy them from individuals who
advertise them in the paper, or who sell them at garage sales or
flea markets, and I never pay with anything but cash, so they are
completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and so will all of
my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor
of greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible
legal purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to
acknowledge this.

We all acknowledge that y'all wish to infringe (via "greater
restrictions") upon the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms.

Skip M wrote:

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.


Its not just the French - pretty much all of europe (and beyond) does this.
The US is simply an odd one out.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Mike wrote:

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:6Vbkd.124829$hj.115415@fed1read07...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation, wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this
cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal
differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all
mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil
partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

I believe the only item from a religious ceremony recognized civilly is the
signed wedding license or certificate.


That is certainly not likely to be the case in France.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.791 / Virus Database: 535 - Release Date: 11/8/04



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article nQZjd.245565$a85.179418@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:icZjd.485345$mD.331311@attbi_s02...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out
against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to
"speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way,
and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US
Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election
which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate
tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful
things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the
spirit
of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people
in
11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand
its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who
are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious.

That is true, but a huge portion of the population IS convinced largely
due
to religious reasons...

Ah, the truth, she is spoken.

Do such persons fail to recall the phrase, "separation of church &
state"? See my .sig. As an additional exercise, locate on Google the
context of the statement as it was originally posted.

(Btw, that phrase "separation of church & state" *isn't* in the
Constitution, but instead, is decidedly "anachronistic," if we're to get
right down to it.)

Nevertheless, to cite Leviticus in terms of United States law seems to
be somewhat at variance to that same Constitution.

(In case that reference is lost on some readers, Leviticus is the book
of the Old Testament which contains a certain pair of verses which are
the most frequently-cited by the so-called "religious-right" to
proclaim, "in plain black & white" [but only in certain "anachronistic"
translations] that homosexuality in & of itself is morally wrong in some
sort of "absolute" sense; pity that the verses only express a
prohibition to one gender, but not the other, & additionally contain a
word, as written in the original Hebrew, which makes the claim of
"absolute" rather questionable.)

Shall I "quote," Mark?

and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This
would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay
marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone.

I suppose they did. Within our lifetimes we will see a significant
reduction in that. It is inevitable. Why? The stunning lack of
evidence to the contrary of course, as compared to the
constantly-increasing body of evidence in support.

As a courtesy to you, Rob, I want to let you know that I have stopped
reading most of your posts simply due to the fact that you go on and on so
long...scattering your thoughts into areas I really don't care to
discuss/debate. I have read small portions of some of your more recent
posts, but ONLY small portions. I am frankly tired of reading them. I
appreciate your enthusiasm, but I just don't care to weed through your
stream-of-consciousness style of book-length posts...with their endless
diversions and tangents.

For example... I read perhaps two paragraphs of this, your latest post.
Don't be insulted--at least I'm tellng you so you can take a breath and find
a more willing participant.