"Gay Days" at Santa Rosa High

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Tlaloc, long time no see. Last time I read you was in the most absurd thread ever about your screenname.

It was pretty silly.

Is Bob allowed to marry someone of the same sex? No.
Is Sue allowed to marry someone of the same sex? No.
QED

Likewise:
Is Bob allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex? Yes
Is Sue allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex? Yes
QED

Looks like this applies to everyone.

If you ask your questions of a judge you get your replym, but when I ask my questions I get my reply. Your reply says the laws are okay. My reply says they aren’t. Now what do you do in such a situation? If your engine is fine but your wheels are flat do you still drive your car? You have to examine the aspect from all angles and make sure it is fine in all of them.

Finally, who says marriage is a right? It’s like GK Chesterton said, “If there are rights, there is an authority to which we appeal for them.” What authority are you appealing to Tlaloc? The Constitution no where says there is a right to marriage.

Lets play a game then, okay? Is procreation acceptable outside of marriage? I don’t mean legally, I mean to you personally…
Of course not, not if you’re Catholic. It’s a big no-no to be fooling around without a ring. So procreation should be restricted to marriage according to your woldview (again assuming you’re Catholic). But procreation most certainly is a human right. So now you want to say that a human right is restricted by an exclusive privelege? That’s non-sensical. So if nothing else by your position marriage has to be seen as a human right.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc, either rights come from God or they are inventions of men.

If rights come from God, there is no right to same-sex marriage.

If rights come from men, they are whatever rights the men in power wish to dole out. The current men in power do not think there is a right to same-sex marriage, so there is not one.

I believe my rights come from God and are inalienable.
You allow your rights to be determined by the popular whim.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

.

But procreation most certainly is a human right.

I ask you this: why is human procreation a right? Who says it is? The Chinese government says it is not. Why are they wrong and we are right?

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

And a single adult woman cannot marry her single adult brother. A single adult man cannot marry his single adult mother. A single adult man cannot marry a single female who is under age. So?
Marriage has never been seen as being between two partners of the same sex.

Like I said lets stick with the one issue.

Lame Tlaloc INCREDIBLY lame. Try again.

Try again? Why? I just undercut your argument neatly. That’s why you resorted to an insult instead of dealing with the issue.

Sorry no discrimination against homosexuals in the marriage law. Do you know of any laws that prohibit homosexuals from marrying? I don’t.

Okay we’ll make marriage between one protestant and another protestant. There, no discrimination against Catholics at all. They just have to become protestants. Gays just have to pretend to be straight. I know, I know, this logic thing keeps upsetting you so now you’ll call me “lame” and maybe even “meany head.”

Tlaloc you are assuming that the only reason to restrict marriage is religious. Untrue. There are biological reasons

Such as?

, historical reasons, and traditional reasons for the structure of marriage as it is seen by most people.

People’s ignorance of the history of marriage is no reason to bar gays from marrying. Hint: Our marriage today is in no way like traditional marriage.

The reason that society gives particular rights and responsibilities to specific groups (i.e. married people) is because there is an assumed benefit to society. Married people are the traditional producers of the next generation.

Then given the divorce rate we should do away with marriage altogether. Today’s married couples are most certainly not the “producers of the next generation” by any meaningful metric.

Thus society in its interest in long term survival wishes to have another crop of citizens. Homosexual unions cannot produce children. So how do they benefit society in the same fashon as married heterosexuals?

So you want to ban sterile people from marrying as well? Or people with vasectomies? Or people who just don’t plan to have kids? What about old people? You have a very limited view of the purpose of marriage. Society has many different reasons for marriage and many different purposes it serves. The question is whether you’ll try to force your limited views on others.

 

[Genesis315]

Hitler said the Jews did not have a right to live. Why was he wrong. I think everyone will agree he was wrong and Jews do have a right to live. But how do we know this? How do we judge that the rights alotted by Hitler are not the rights we all deserve? God is the authority you must go to in order to make this judgment. The Constitution was a work of men. It enumerates rights, it does not give them. The rights are already there. (ps #62, 63 string together with this one, sorry for the disjunct)

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Hitler said the Jews did not have a right to live. Why was he wrong. I think everyone will agree he was wrong and Jews do have a right to live. But how do we know this? How do we judge that the rights alotted by Hitler are not the rights we all deserve? God is the authority you must go to in order to make this judgment. The Constitution was a work of men. It enumerates rights, it does not give them. The rights are already there. (ps #62, 63 string together with this one, sorry for the disjunct)

Except that God enumerates no rights at all in the Bible. The ten commandmants have no “Thou may” statements, only “Thou shalt not” or Thou shalt" statements. On top of that we’re a secular nation so attributing the rights we assign to citizens as coming from God is improper.

Personally I don’t like the concepts of human rights as it’s far too nebulous. But still it’s the system we have at the moment so we’re stuck with it.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

Except that God enumerates no rights at all in the Bible. The ten commandmants have no “Thou may” statements, only “Thou shalt not” or Thou shalt" statements. On top of that we’re a secular nation so attributing the rights we assign to citizens as coming from God is improper.

Personally I don’t like the concepts of human rights as it’s far too nebulous. But still it’s the system we have at the moment so we’re stuck with it.

See, that’s why Bible thumping Baptists are wrong. We’re not sola scriptura here. Not everything is in the Bible my friend. Again, answer my question, no copping out: why do people have a right to marriage? If the Constitution were amended to say there is no right to marriage, I think you would still say there is a right to marriage. But why? What is your argument for this position besides some people say it should be a right? If not to God, where do you attribute rights?

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Like I said lets stick with the one issue…

OK you as a single man have the right to marry anyone any other single man has the right to marry. There is no specific discrimination against “Tlaloc” You have the same right as anyone else. No discrimination. Again we have NEVER been able to marry anyone we wanted. The right to marry does not mean the right to marry anyone. It never has.

Tlaloc:

Try again? Why? I just undercut your argument neatly. That’s why you resorted to an insult instead of dealing with the issue…

No you made up a ridiculous scenario. Why would we suddenly make a law against being Catholic and what does that have to do with whether two homosexuals can marry? Further we haven’t suddenly made up a law saying it’s illegal to be homosexual. In fact the USSC specifically said you can sodomize at will as long as you don’t make it public. So again it’s a silly analogy and makes no sense.

Tlaloc:

Okay we’ll make marriage between one protestant and another protestant. There, no discrimination against Catholics at all. They just have to become protestants. Gays just have to pretend to be straight. I know, I know, this logic thing keeps upsetting you so now you’ll call me “lame” and maybe even “meany head.”.

No homosexuals do not have to pretend to be straight. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex assuming they are also single and of age. They have the same rights to marry the same people as a heterosexual. No discrimination against HOMOSEXUALS because you are free to marry.

Say on the proabort thread you said you have a daughter? So who is the real Tlaloc? A single homosexual or a married man with a daughter? I think you mentioned a wife in the other thread. Have you booted her and the kid into cyberspace?

Tlaloc:

People’s ignorance of the history of marriage is no reason to bar gays from marrying. Hint: Our marriage today is in no way like traditional marriage…

Marriage has always had a male female combination. It has never been same sex. Ever. So since you say I am ignorant of the history of marriage, maybe you can enlighten me as to the society where Bob and Steve tied the knot with society’s blessing?

Tlaloc:

Then given the divorce rate we should do away with marriage altogether. Today’s married couples are most certainly not the “producers of the next generation” by any meaningful metric.

So you want to ban sterile people from marrying as well? Or people with vasectomies? Or people who just don’t plan to have kids? What about old people? You have a very limited view of the purpose of marriage. Society has many different reasons for marriage and many different purposes it serves. The question is whether you’ll try to force your limited views on others.

More red herrings. Are you SURE you are not Zoot/Ken? He used the same tired arguments. I do not want to ban any single male/female combination from marrying. That has always been the common thread in all societies. Male plus female. While not every marriage results in children, that is the ideal for society to insure its future. Now taking your tired logic a step further, what is the purpose of making everyone go to school? Society has a vested interest in a literate citizenry. However in reality not everyone who goes to school becomes educated. I guess we should do away with public schools?

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

See, that’s why Bible thumping Baptists are wrong. We’re not sola scriptura here. Not everything is in the Bible my friend. Again, answer my question, no copping out: why do people have a right to marriage? If the Constitution were amended to say there is no right to marriage, I think you would still say there is a right to marriage.

No I wouldn’t. If everyone is treated equally as far as marriage I’m fine. In fact my suggestion for resolving the situation is to completely remove marriage from government. Make some form of civil union people can engage in to get the benefits currently going to married couples and allow any two adults to have such a a union (it’d simply be a financial matter anyway).

Leave marriage as a ritual which each faith can define however the hell they want.

If not to God, where do you attribute rights?

As I said I don’t like the human right issue because I don’t see it coming from anywhere, certainly not a God I don’t believe in. If I were to attribute them to anything it would have to be to a sense of common decency or to a logical proposition of equality. As before I find neither very satisfactory. But I’m an anarchist so fortunately I don’t have to try and resolve issues in the legitimacy of “human rights.”

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

OK you as a single man have the right to marry anyone any other single man has the right to marry. There is no specific discrimination against “Tlaloc” You have the same right as anyone else. No discrimination.

a gay man or woman doesn’t have the same rights as a straight person of the opposite sex. Our consititution doesn’t allow for sexism. Rights given Bob must also be given to Virginia.

No you made up a ridiculous scenario. Why would we suddenly make a law against being Catholic and what does that have to do with whether two homosexuals can marry?

It’s an analogy, a form of argument by taking the same cirumstances and putting it in another way to illustrate logical flaws. In this case you recognize the absurdity of a law that Catholics can’t marry Catholics, all we have to do now is hlep you understand how that parallels not allowing gays to marry gays.

Further we haven’t suddenly made up a law saying it’s illegal to be homosexual.

I didn’t say Catholicism would be illegal, just that they couldn’t marry each other. That’s a parallel situation.

No homosexuals do not have to pretend to be straight. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex assuming they are also single and of age. They have the same rights to marry the same people as a heterosexual. No discrimination against HOMOSEXUALS because you are free to marry.

So then you accept that we can define marriage as a union of two protestants and that’snot discrimination against Catholics? Cause otherwise you’d be wrong above.

Say on the proabort thread you said you have a daughter? So who is the real Tlaloc? A single homosexual or a married man with a daughter? I think you mentioned a wife in the other thread. Have you booted her and the kid into cyberspace?

I’ve never claimed to be gay, Lisa. Some posters here have assumed it and I didn’t bother to correct them. I do have a son and a daughter and I am divorced.

Marriage has always had a male female combination. It has never been same sex. Ever.

Except some historians disagree with you. Greeks and Romans both may have had gay marriage. Your certainty is vastly premature. Besides what if it turns out that hundreds of cultures have traditionally had gay marriage? Will you then change your position or is this simply a convenient argument that you use only so long as it works for you?

So since you say I am ignorant of the history of marriage, maybe you can enlighten me as to the society where Bob and Steve tied the knot with society’s blessing?

Possibly Sparta and Rome among others.

More red herrings. Are you SURE you are not Zoot/Ken? He used the same tired arguments.

Is that because they show how illogical you’re position is?

I do not want to ban any single male/female combination from marrying.

Then your claims about procreation are moot, you don’t wish to preclude non-breeders then you cannot use the non-breeding aspect of homosexual couples as an argument against them.

Now taking your tired logic a step further, what is the purpose of making everyone go to school? Society has a vested interest in a literate citizenry. However in reality not everyone who goes to school becomes educated. I guess we should do away with public schools?

actually to extend your logic would be to say:
school is to teach literacy
hispanics have no interest in learning to read
therefor hispanics should be banned from school

my argument then countered:
many kids have no interest in learning to read if you do not want to ban them then it is hypocritical of you to ban the hispanics for it

Aren’t analogies fun? (At least when used correctly)

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

No I wouldn’t. If everyone is treated equally as far as marriage I’m fine. In fact my suggestion for resolving the situation is to completely remove marriage from government. Make some form of civil union people can engage in to get the benefits currently going to married couples and allow any two adults to have such a a union (it’d simply be a financial matter anyway).

Leave marriage as a ritual which each faith can define however the hell they want.

As I said I don’t like the human right issue because I don’t see it coming from anywhere, certainly not a God I don’t believe in. If I were to attribute them to anything it would have to be to a sense of common decency or to a logical proposition of equality. As before I find neither very satisfactory. But I’m an anarchist so fortunately I don’t have to try and resolve issues in the legitimacy of “human rights.”

I’m sorry, I wrote that wrong. I meant, if the Constitution was amended to say there was no right to same-sex marriage. my bad. But you basically answered that later.

Look Tlaloc, your prideful attachment to relativism is weakening your argument. So what are you arguing if there is no right to same-sex marriage? You think there is a sense of common decency? Who decides what that is? You yourself said that majority rule is bad. A logical proposition of equality? According to whose logic? Why is equality logical? There have been many a logical philospher who has not believed in equality. Show me a syllogism that says equality follows logically from something? What will that something be?

So you’re an anarchist eh? I thought you didn’t believe in might makes right. That’s what anarchy is my friend. The only way it is not is if everyone follows an absolute morality. They must agree that interfering with others is wrong or else the strong will dominate the weak. You cannot help but admit to yourself that there is absolute morality. This absolute morality comes from God, Tlaloc. As hard as you try to ignore it, it is written on your heart. Put your pride down. There is no way to prove anything morally right or wrong without appealing to a supreme authority.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

When it comes to logical errors, please remember the ‘category mistake’ i.e. homosexuals are not a race, religion, ethnic group or a third sex. Homosexuals are “objectively disordered” and should be prevented from positions of authority that require emotional stability and clarity of thought.

So it is invalid to compare homosexuals with woman, religion, or with Irish, Italians, etc. Comparing homosexual marriage to a Catholic marriage is a category mistake, sloppy reasoning.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

a gay man or woman doesn’t have the same rights as a straight person of the opposite sex. Our consititution doesn’t allow for sexism. Rights given Bob must also be given to Virginia.)

And they are on the same level. Bob can marry someone of the opposite sex and Jill (Virginia is a state) can marry someone of the opposite sex. Neither has a right the other does not. Your logic still fails.

Tlaloc:

It’s an analogy, a form of argument by taking the same cirumstances and putting it in another way to illustrate logical flaws. In this case you recognize the absurdity of a law that Catholics can’t marry Catholics, all we have to do now is hlep you understand how that parallels not allowing gays to marry gays.)

Oh homosexuals can marry other homosexuals. They cannot marry someone of the same sex (except in Massachusetts why don’t you move there?). That people of the same sex cannot marry each other is not absurd. Marriage in its many iterations over the centuries has always had a male female component.

Tlaloc:

I didn’t say Catholicism would be illegal, just that they couldn’t marry each other. That’s a parallel situation.)

Again there is no law that a homosexual cannot marry. There is no law that a homosexual cannot marry another homosexual. But they must be of opposite sex.

Tlaloc:

ISo then you accept that we can define marriage as a union of two protestants and that’snot discrimination against Catholics? Cause otherwise you’d be wrong above.

Such a law would never be enacted. Freedom of religion has been part of our basic understanding of being American. Also there is no law against being a homosexual.

Tlaloc:

I’ve never claimed to be gay, Lisa. Some posters here have assumed it and I didn’t bother to correct them. I do have a son and a daughter and I am divorced.

Tlaloc:

Thereby proving being homosexual is not an intrinsic condition. You are very obviously homosexual or bi sexual. No heterosexual man would be so protective of such a disordered state of mind.

Tlaloc:

Except some historians disagree with you. Greeks and Romans both may have had gay marriage. Your certainty is vastly premature. Besides what if it turns out that hundreds of cultures have traditionally had gay marriage? Will you then change your position or is this simply a convenient argument that you use only so long as it works for you?

Possibly Sparta and Rome among others. )

I have never said that homosexual relationships were not recognized in certain societies. However while in some societies male male friendships, whether sexual or not, were considered to be a higher level of relationship, it had nothing to do with the sexual activity and everything to do with the opinion that women were inferior creatures, suitable only for having children.

In Rome and Sparta while homosexual relationships were tolerated they never took the place of marriage. Males in Sparta lived together but they had wives as well, and would return to their wives periodically to hopefully beget children.

Tlaloc:

Is that because they show how illogical you’re position is?

Then your claims about procreation are moot, you don’t wish to preclude non-breeders then you cannot use the non-breeding aspect of homosexual couples as an argument against them.)

Your use of ‘breeders’ is evidence you are a homosexual. That is the kind of language used. Would you like me to refer to you as a sodomist? Is it necessary to be so nasty?

Marriage has always had a male female component. Always. That some couples cannot have children does not negate the basic premise and reason for the institution of marriage. Society strives for the ideal if it wants to flourish.

Tlaloc:

actually to extend your

logic would be to say:
school is to teach literacy
hispanics have no interest in learning to read
therefor hispanics should be banned from school

my argument then countered:
many kids have no interest in learning to read if you do not want to ban them then it is hypocritical of you to ban the hispanics for it

Aren’t analogies fun? (At least when used correctly)
No your analogy is completely off track. What someone wants or doesn’t want is not relevant. I am not talking about someone being banned from school because they don’t want to go. Society offers the opportunity. The ideal is a literate citizenry. Not all citizens will become literate. We don’t reach the ideal. How does this tie into the homosexual marriage argument?

Lisa N

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc,

Here is the corner you have backed yourself into: Either you appeal to some supreme power for your argument that allowing homosexuals to marry is right or you appeal to human beings. If human beings are your authority on right and wrong, then when human beings decide homosexual marriage is wrong, you have to accept it. Your own relativism confines you. What makes one human being’s idea of right and wrong correct and another’s erroneous?

Your only hope is to invent a god for yourself that says denying homosexuals marriage is wrong. And I’m not sure if you’re ready to start becoming a theist, are you? If you are, then you’ve taken the first big step towards your conversion:thumbsup:

You’ve left yourself with might makes right, or God makes right. And your love of anarchy tells me you prefer might makes right. So when the mighty deny homosexuals marriage, shut up and except it. If you don’t want to shut up, declare your belief in absolute morality. Then you must show me that absolute morality comes from somewhere other than human beings.

See, I’ve even given you a nice roadmap for your argument.

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Look Tlaloc, your prideful attachment to relativism is weakening your argument. So what are you arguing if there is no right to same-sex marriage? You think there is a sense of common decency? Who decides what that is? You yourself said that majority rule is bad. A logical proposition of equality? According to whose logic? Why is equality logical? There have been many a logical philospher who has not believed in equality. Show me a syllogism that says equality follows logically from something? What will that something be?

I’ve already said…twice…that I find the whole human rights concept pretty flimsy.

So you’re an anarchist eh? I thought you didn’t believe in might makes right. That’s what anarchy is my friend.

If you want to discuss anarchism lets do it in another thread. That’s a whole new load of misconceptions to tackle.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

And they are on the same level. Bob can marry someone of the opposite sex and Jill (Virginia is a state) can marry someone of the opposite sex. Neither has a right the other does not. Your logic still fails.

Sorry no. As with the other poster you don’t get to ask just the questions you want. You have to ask all the questions to determine validity. When we pose the question in terms of who can marry whom the discrimination becomes obvious.

Oh homosexuals can marry other homosexuals. They cannot marry someone of the same sex (except in Massachusetts why don’t you move there?). That people of the same sex cannot marry each other is not absurd. Marriage in its many iterations over the centuries has always had a male female component.

As before you may be wrong according to historians, and furthermore I suspect you don’t actually believe we should do things the traditional way because if it turns out homosexual marriage was practiced you’ll suddenly change to a different argument.

Again there is no law that a homosexual cannot marry. There is no law that a homosexual cannot marry another homosexual. But they must be of opposite sex.

So you’ve retreated to semantic quibblings now?

Such a law would never be enacted. Freedom of religion has been part of our basic understanding of being American. Also there is no law against being a homosexual.

You are arguing for creating discrimination, don’t be so naive as to believe it may never be aimed at you, Lisa. There have been anti-catholic groups and movements in this nation’s past. There could easily be again if people don’t try to prevent bigorty from becoming law.

I have never said that homosexual relationships were not recognized in certain societies. However while in some societies male male friendships, whether sexual or not, were considered to be a higher level of relationship, it had nothing to do with the sexual activity and everything to do with the opinion that women were inferior creatures, suitable only for having children.

You argue what you want to believe rather than from any position of fact. As I said there is some evidence that some societies may have had gay marriage. Not just relationships. Marriage.

In Rome and Sparta while homosexual relationships were tolerated they never took the place of marriage. Males in Sparta lived together but they had wives as well, and would return to their wives periodically to hopefully beget children.

You may be right, but you may also be wrong. The historical evidence is not clear, certainly not so much that you can be so self assured on the matter.

Your use of ‘breeders’ is evidence you are a homosexual. That is the kind of language used. Would you like me to refer to you as a sodomist? Is it necessary to be so nasty?

As often is the case your choice of “evidence” leaves much to be desired. I’m not gay, nor am I a sodomist of habit. But you already claim to know more than psychologists, psychiatrists, historians…why shouldn’t you know me better than me?

Lisa, I don’t lie to you, you can think whatever you want about me but I have no reason to lie. I really don’t care enough about your misperceptions to lie to try and correct them. I’ll give you the truth as best I can and if it helps you, great. If not, well, I can’t really pretend to be bothered.

Marriage has always had a male female component. Always.

Good to see you continue to make definite statements without proof. Keep it up!

That some couples cannot have children does not negate the basic premise and reason for the institution of marriage. Society strives for the ideal if it wants to flourish.

That’s funny you were just arguing the premise was procreation. How odd that your position keeps shifting.

No your analogy is completely off track. What someone wants or doesn’t want is not relevant. I am not talking about someone being banned from school because they don’t want to go. Society offers the opportunity. The ideal is a literate citizenry. Not all citizens will become literate. We don’t reach the ideal. How does this tie into the homosexual marriage argument?

Because you singled out one group who may not become literate and want to pretend thats a logical excuse to keep them out of school.

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Tlaloc,

Here is the corner you have backed yourself into: Either you appeal to some supreme power for your argument that allowing homosexuals to marry is right or you appeal to human beings. If human beings are your authority on right and wrong, then when human beings decide homosexual marriage is wrong, you have to accept it. Your own relativism confines you. What makes one human being’s idea of right and wrong correct and another’s erroneous?

Because of who they are applied to. The individual’s sense of right and wrong is valid for them. Hence you shouldn’t be forced to accept homosexuality, but when you try to force everyone else not to accept it you are equally wrong.

Your only hope is to invent a god for yourself that says denying homosexuals marriage is wrong. And I’m not sure if you’re ready to start becoming a theist, are you? If you are, then you’ve taken the first big step towards your conversion:thumbsup:

Again lets move the anarchism discussion to another thread. I’ve been through this with no small number of people before and there is inevtiably a lot of confusion and misperceptions to get cleared up.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc the only thing you have proved is that you believe your opinions are fact. So far you have not posted any rationale for your contention that if a homosexual male has the right to marry anyone that a heterosexual male could marry, that somehow this means there is discrimination against homosexuals. If both males have the same rights then there is no discrimination against homosexuals. Please explain how if two people have the same rights, one is being discriminated against.

Further you try to ally the homosexual movement with other civil rights movements. But again you are trying to compare intrinsic qualities with choices and lifestyles. I am female. I was born female. I will die female. I live every day female. That will not change. Any limitations of being female are intrinsic to my nature. I have an African American co-worker. She was born African American. She has lived every day African American. Nothing will change about this characteristic.

OTOH even homosexual apologists admit that this SSA is transitory at best. We all know people who have been hetero-homo-hetero. I know several homosexuals who married, had kids and ‘came out’ late in life. Were they always really homosexual or did something change? How about the actress that was associated with Ellen Degeneres (I think) who said nope, she is not a lesbian anymore, married and had a child. There are also people who identified as homosexual, were treated and are now living heterosexual lives with opposite sex spouses. Homosexuals are not defined by who they are but what they do…at that moment in time. So you cannot fix special rights based on intrinsic qualities when those qualities are about as stable as paper in the wind.

As to homosexual marriage you simply blow off my statements about no evidence of homosexual marriage saying it “may” have occurred. Well has it? We’re all waiting for evidence. Your opinions are already clear.

If you are not homosexual and disdain Catholicism what are you doing on this list? Are you just here to tell us we are all foolish and since you are so compelling in your presentation we will all capitulate? Good luck.

Frankly it is pointless to continue discussing anything with you. You refuse to respond to questions. You fail to provide evidence of your premises. You are just the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion. Aren’t we all?

Lisa N

 

[Exporter]

Tlaloc,

I have noticed that your posts are simply reactions to other posts.

If you were a boxer,you’d be a counter-puncher.

I look forward to the day when you actually write something that you have originated. Maybe you don’t have any original thoughts.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

By precluding a member of the population from enjoying the same rights as another member. That’s the textbook definition of discrimination.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as any other person in those states after the ammendments were passed.