a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

On 2010-04-16 16:06:15 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news
"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
"David Ruether" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

Again: in one of the few small, liberal, politically correct New
England states, in which same-sex marriage was made legal by the state
legislature, there was such strong popular feeling against it it was
repealed on referendum. So when you say "Most of us are OK with same
sex marriages" you must be using "us" to refer to some very small
category of people.

This brings up the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to
have a referendum on the rights of a segment of the population

It wasn't a referendum on any segment's "rights," but rather on whether
the meaning of the word "marriage" can be radically changed by a state
legislature for reasons of political correctness.

Homosexuals continue to have the same rights as anyone else as far as
marriage is concerned. No more and no less. I have not heard of
anyone's being denied the right to marry on the grounds that he or she
is a homosexual. Have you?

YES!!!!!! Gosh, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU?!?!?!
Marriage is a HUMAN right, and it brings with it legal and financial
advantages and responsibilities. Maybe you would see this more clearly
if, until recently, no blond-haired people (or people with any other
inherent characteristic such as homosexuality) could marry, and then
only in a few areas of the country, with their marriages not being
recognized in most others. THINK ABOUT IT!!! You would deny
some people equal rights due to your "beliefs" (which sounds kinda
familiar, doesn't it, from our recent past...?).

possessed by all but a minority. If we had depended on the
referendum in the past in this way, the country would not have
desegregated the races, nor permitted interracial marriage.

How do you know that?

Oh, COME ON!!!!!! You know of the court decisions, followed
eventually by legislative decisions, that were required to make this
happen. (I may think you're an idiot, but I don't think you're stupid! ;-)

What you are saying, in other words, is that "the people" are too
stupid or mean to decide these things for themselves, but need to have
unpopular laws shoved down their throats by elites who "know better."
Eh?

Not "elites", but legislative representatives and courts whose duty it
is to protect and advance the rights of minorities to bring them to the
level of the majority. It's called "representative democracy", and it was
chosen for a reason - it tends to minimizes mob rule...

But,
as a matter of fact polls do generally indicate that the gay marriage
opinion of the public is fairly evenly split, and deceptive "scare ads"
before elections have tended to tilt the balance inappropriately.
The direction is toward more states in the US moving to legalize
gay marriage - and even Iowa unexpectedly legalized it. If we can
get past a 5 to 4 right-leaning supreme court, the issue may be
decided in a positive direction there.

Only four of the nine SCOTUS justices are conservative. In the past we
have had an excessively LEFT-leaning high court, which has caused all
sorts of mischief such as school busing to supposedly improve racial
"equality," which has been a complete and expensive failure as far as I
can see.

It depends on your point of view, I guess... Certainly the recent court's
activist decision that overturned a century of precedence by rendering
corporations not just legally "people" (as they were before), but declared
that they also possess ALL of the rights of people shows the absurdity
of rightist thinking on the court.
--DR

It is the job of the US Constitution to protect the rights of the
minority from the tyranny of the majority,

And you really believe "the tyranny of the majority" is more onerous
than the tyranny of a tiny minority (and their enablers)? How exactly
do you think democracy is supposed to work?

and it is apparent to me that this means that eventually, all states
will allow marriage to be available to same sex couples. It is only a
matter of time. What is amazing to me is that the concept of
constitutional law is still, at this late date, so difficult for so
many people to understand. Why don't they teach it in grammar school?
That's where I learned it.

What conflict do you think you see with "constitutional law"? Or don't
you believe the Constitution means exactly what it says, no more and no
less?

What constitutes the tyranny of the majority differs from case to
case.....When some guy wanted to start a Cable TV business in Southern
California back in the 60's there appeared petitions in the lobby of
all the theaters for people to sign that would have prevented it. I saw
immediately that this would infringe on his rights and I said so
loudly. I got nothing but blank stares from the petitioners. Sure
enough, they got the necessary number of signatures, and it got on the
ballot. And the brilliant people of the state of California (who have
never understood the word, "constitutional") Voted for it, and it
became law. So, the poor slob had to sue in the courts for his right to
go into this totally non-invasive business. (After all, if he comes to
your house and asks you if you want his cable to run to your house, all
you have to do is say, "No" and slam the door in his face, and he will
go to your neighbors house.) He did this, and, (amazing as it was to
me) the California supreme court threw the law out, and he went into
the cable TV business. I wondered, at that time, where the California
Supreme Court got its members. I figured they must have been eastern
lawyers.....:^) But this didn't make me happy with my fellow California
citizens.....I should have known then that I was in big trouble
politically.

In the same way, if a gay couple comes to your house and asks you to
come to their moving in party, you can slam the door in their face too.
Their existence doesn't infringe on your rights at all. If you pass
them next Sunday having their wedding at their local church, you won't
have to slow down for them any more than you would for a heterosexual
wedding party. ASAMOF, their existence won't infringe on your rights in
any way whatsoever. So, why the hell do you object to it, and why the
hell would you make any laws against them calling themselves, "husband
and wife"? Of course, there is no reason, and that's why they have the
constitutional right to be married.

Bill, instead of all that blather why don't you just try to answer the
question? I'll repeat it, in caps this time:

WHAT CONFLICT DO YOU THINK YOU SEE WITH "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"? OR DON'T
YOU BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, NO MORE AND NO
LESS?

So you want a constitutional amendment that specifically gives equal
rights to gays? The same rights that married heterosexuals have? Well,
it will probably come to that, but it shouldn't have to. The spirit of
the document should already guarantee that. The writers of the
constitution knew that things would change in the future, and they
wrote the document to compensate for that....but there are some people
who have to have it spelled out for them. Liberals who insist that the
second amendment doesn't give me the right to carry a pistol in my
pocket, for example. Again, I contend that the constitution gives gays
the right to marry. Simply because their marrying doesn't infringe on
anyone else's rights.....No more than this is necessary.

The 14th Amendment is already supposed to guarantee "equal protection
under the law." All you need is some body to argue the point, and have
SCOTUS rule that it should apply to homosexual couples.
You are not going to find politicians on the Hill with the courage to do it.

It is going to take a Justice with some cajones to write such an
opinion, and sway the right of the bench. Something such as Marshall
with Brown v. Board of Education, or the issues surrounding protection
of Voter's Rights with the 15th Amendment & The Civil Rights Act of
1964.

The interesting thing with the Civil Rights Act voting on the Hill, it
took bipartisan cooperation of the Northern Democrats and Republicans
in both houses to get it passed. Of the Southern Democrats and
Republicans in both Houses, only 8 voted for it. Notable Northern
Senators who voted against it were Robert Byrd and Barry Goldwater.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Somehow I don't think we will see that type of bipartisan cooperation again.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:27:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

It IS ridiculous, and it's unfortunate if such a term found its way into
Taber's.

Terms do not wander into Taber's. Taber's, like all dictionaries,
seek them out. They look for words that are in common use and add
them to the dictionary. The added words are in use before they are
added to the dictionary.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010041600165511967-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-04-15 22:28:35 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:20:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:




Logically, "homophobia" would mean "abnormal fear of the same," not "of
homosexuals." The prefix "homo-" means "the same." "Homocentric" means
having the same center, "homogenized" means the same all the through,
"homologous" means having the same relative position, and so on. Nothing
to
do with homosexual except in that word itself, which of course means
attraction to the same sex.

Huh?

It seems your anthropology and taxonomy education was lacking.

I don't think so.

What could "homo" in Homo Habilis, or Homo Erectus be?

That would be Latin, meaning "mankind." Only the "Homo" (genus) is usually
capitalized. Not the "habilis" or "erectus" designating species.

Have you ever heard of HOMONIDS ?
How about that one you should be familiar with, Homo sapiens sapiens?

Yep. Still Latin.

Appropriate on tax day, your translation "The same sap"
or since we have issues with incest, there is that cousin Homo
neanderthalensis.

Just to clarify, Homo is the genus, the species is H. sapiens, giving us
"Thinking man." Homo being man, and sapiens, being wise or knowing.

Absolutely.


Neil, Neil, Neil, I am so disappointed.

Duck, Duck, Duck. I am flabbergasted that you would think "homogenized"
might have something to do with mankind. Have you seen any homogenized
people splashing around?

"Homo" as in H. sapiens is from the Latin, and basically means
"mankind" -- as I said.

"homo" (not generally capitalized) is from the Greek "homos," and
basically means "the same." Thus we have homogenized, homocentric,
homologous, homogeneous, homozygous, and many, many more words beginning
with homo-, in all of which "homo" means "the same." Not "mankind."


Now find a mirror.

After you. :-)

Does, "pasteurized" mean they live in the fields?

On 2010-04-16 16:52:11 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010041600165511967-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-04-15 22:28:35 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:20:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:




Logically, "homophobia" would mean "abnormal fear of the same," not "of
homosexuals." The prefix "homo-" means "the same." "Homocentric" means
having the same center, "homogenized" means the same all the through,
"homologous" means having the same relative position, and so on. Nothing to
do with homosexual except in that word itself, which of course means
attraction to the same sex.

Huh?

It seems your anthropology and taxonomy education was lacking.

I don't think so.

What could "homo" in Homo Habilis, or Homo Erectus be?

That would be Latin, meaning "mankind." Only the "Homo" (genus) is
usually capitalized. Not the "habilis" or "erectus" designating species.

Have you ever heard of HOMONIDS ?
How about that one you should be familiar with, Homo sapiens sapiens?

Yep. Still Latin.

Appropriate on tax day, your translation "The same sap"
or since we have issues with incest, there is that cousin Homo
neanderthalensis.

Just to clarify, Homo is the genus, the species is H. sapiens, giving
us "Thinking man." Homo being man, and sapiens, being wise or knowing.

Absolutely.


Neil, Neil, Neil, I am so disappointed.

Duck, Duck, Duck. I am flabbergasted that you would think "homogenized"
might have something to do with mankind. Have you seen any homogenized
people splashing around?

"Homo" as in H. sapiens is from the Latin, and basically means
"mankind" -- as I said.

"homo" (not generally capitalized) is from the Greek "homos," and
basically means "the same." Thus we have homogenized, homocentric,
homologous, homogeneous, homozygous, and many, many more words
beginning with homo-, in all of which "homo" means "the same." Not
"mankind."


Now find a mirror.

After you. :-)

Does, "pasteurized" mean they live in the fields?

No. They just have a later "use by date."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

David Ruether wrote:
Wilba wrote:

What's the pay-off for having that distinction?

Oh, "Wilba", your questions are just too logical for those
without much empathy... ;-)

Um, that's a compliment, right? Thanks! :-D

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham wrote:
I am not blaming her.....There is only one thing to blame, and that is the
god damned liberal democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing.

If they're socialists, they're damn incompetent ones -- real socalists
would have given us universal, single-payer health care.

answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want an
exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in this

Well, I have no reason to mail her, she's not my rep in congress.
Instead, I have Bill "Birther" Posey (R), who isn't likely to be
re-elected, and doesn't even bother to send me the "loookee what I"ve
done for you!" mailers.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On 17 Apr 2010 02:51:10 GMT, Stuffed Crust
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham wrote:
I am not blaming her.....There is only one thing to blame, and that is the
god damned liberal democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing.

If they're socialists, they're damn incompetent ones -- real socalists
would have given us universal, single-payer health care.

answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want an
exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in this

Well, I have no reason to mail her, she's not my rep in congress.
Instead, I have Bill "Birther" Posey (R), who isn't likely to be
re-elected, and doesn't even bother to send me the "loookee what I"ve
done for you!" mailers.

- Solomon

Well, I have John "That's not roadkill, it's my toupee" Mica as mine.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Neil Harrington wrote:
Yes, Stephanie, I have come to ignore most of your posts

And that is how Harrington convinces himself that he's right - he
simply ignores any fact which he doens't like.

--
Ray Fischer

Savageduck wrote:

You did not address the other use of "homo" and you succeeded in making
yourself appear selectively ignorant.
The back pedaling is waay too obvious.


He still refuses to backpedal from his "99% feels the same way I do"
when it's been pointed out multiple times that it's no where near 99% of
the population feels as he does.

Selectively ignorant is a nice way of putting this.

Stephanie

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-16 13:27:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


More projection. You'll have to do a lot more twisting and turning
than that
to get all that egg off your face.

It was not my face which got splattered in this exchange.

Your initial attempt at ridicule is what did not quite work out. Just
because you find the term "homophobia" inapprotiate, does not make it
invalid.


I wonder if Neil has noticed NO ONE has backed him up on anything he has
said here, yet he still believes 99% of the world thinks like he does...

Stephanie