Is There A Legal Reason...

[Fred75]

Ms. Levine says she was "misunderstood" after a news article last month quoted her saying a boy's sexual experience with a priest "conceivably" could be positive.
"Do I advocate priests having sex with their child parishioners? No, absolutely no," she said in a telephone interview. However, she said, "The research shows us that in some minority of cases, young ? even quite young ? people can have a positive [sexual] experience with an adult. That's what the research shows."

Well what do you know!
All those priests that molested little boys were doing some a favor!

Isn't that sweet!

And guess what... gay marriage is going to help approve more of that!

[Cambridge]

What is that Fred, nine posts…mostly in a row…and long ones, too. And still you fail to answer Sharon’s question.

Actually, Sharon, there are many legal reasons: the laws that states have passed—California and New York among the –are legal in nature. But is there a valid state or public interest that supports these laws? Massachusetts says no. Hillary Goodridge, et al. v. Dept. of Public Health. California’s is up before the state Supreme Court right now. The California Court is expected to rule in early June whether to affirm or overturn Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2000 that reaffirmed marriage as between a man and a woman. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro. California is the largest state in the US and it’s determination of this question is gonna be influential. New York says yes, but in doing so it erases half of its State Constitutional equal protection clause. Hernandez v. Robles.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8459476?nclick_check=1

and,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/03/MN7KV9PRA.DTL

[Fred75]

What is that Fred, nine posts…mostly in a row…and long ones, too. And still you fail to answer Sharon’s question.

Actually, Sharon, there are many legal reasons: the laws that states have passed—California and New York among the –are legal in nature. But is there a valid state or public interest that supports these laws? Massachusetts says no. Hillary Goodridge, et al. v. Dept. of Public Health. California’s is up before the state Supreme Court right now. The California Court is expected to rule in early June whether to affirm or overturn Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2000 that reaffirmed marriage as between a man and a woman. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro. California is the largest state in the US and it’s determination of this question is gonna be influential. New York says yes, but in doing so it erases half of its State Constitutional equal protection clause. Hernandez v. Robles.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8459476?nclick_check=1

and,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/03/MN7KV9PRA.DTL

How about using the site www.tinyurl.com to make the first page accessible.


Also... I actually did answer her.
And better than you did! Because as others like to say about me... all you did was give links and no reason.

[Fred75]

"Marriage is for procreation, and children fare best with married fathers and mothers"


That's from one of the links.
And I agree.

Marriage is there for the protection of the family and the children.

There no NORMAL in two men that like to F*** each other in the arse raising a child.
That's abnormal.
An ABOMINATION.

That's the Pandora's Box you open up when you make two gay men the equal of whats really NORMAL.

[Cambridge]

What is that Fred, nine posts…mostly in a row…and long ones, too. And still you fail to answer Sharon’s question.

Actually, Sharon, there are many legal reasons: the laws that states have passed—California and New York among the –are legal in nature. But is there a valid state or public interest that supports these laws? Massachusetts says no. Hillary Goodridge, et al. v. Dept. of Public Health. California’s is up before the state Supreme Court right now. The California Court is expected to rule in early June whether to affirm or overturn Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2000 that reaffirmed marriage as between a man and a woman. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro. California is the largest state in the US and it’s determination of this question is gonna be influential. New York says yes, but in doing so it erases half of its State Constitutional equal protection clause. Hernandez v. Robles.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8459476?nclick_check=1

and,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/03/MN7KV9PRA.DTL

How about using the site www.tinyurl.com to make the first page accessible.


Also... I actually did answer her.
And better than you did! Because as others like to say about me... all you did was give links and no reason.

Also... I actually did answer her.
And better than you did! Because as others like to say about me... all you did was give links and no reason.

You’re so full of bullshit, Fred. She asked for legal reasons. Name one statute or case that you have mentioned. I gave cases, laws and descriptions. You just gave us the same old headstrong, imbecilic “Hells Angel” reasoning that you usually give us. I'm going to go back to calling you hairy back, cause that’s what you really are...one big, dumb gorilla.

[Cambridge]

"Marriage is for procreation, and children fare best with married fathers and mothers"


That's from one of the links.
And I agree.

Marriage is there for the protection of the family and the children.

There no NORMAL in two men that like to F*** each other in the arse raising a child.
That's abnormal.
An ABOMINATION.

That's the Pandora's Box you open up when you make two gay men the equal of whats really NORMAL.

"Marriage is for procreation, and children fare best with married fathers and mothers"

Prove it.

That's from one of the links.
And I agree.

Marriage is there for the protection of the family and the children.

Again, prove it.

There no NORMAL in two men that like to F*** each other in the arse raising a child.
That's abnormal.
An ABOMINATION.

That's the Pandora's Box you open up when you make two gay men the equal of whats really NORMAL.

So you say, hb. Now prove it.

[Sharon den Adel]

good job, Sharon. You've managed to keep Fred busy and he's leaving the rest of us alone.

It's because I have raised such a good point that Fred feels the need to pull out the big guns.

[Sharon den Adel]

Fred, all I can say is: You must be worried. Obviously I've stuck a thorn in your side that you are desperatly trying to get rid of.

I haven't heard a LEGAL reason from you yet. Natural and unnatural don't come into it. Legal reason please. Something that will stand up in a court of law. If I don't see a legal reason here the next time you post, I shall assume there isn't one.


Thank you for the links, Cambridge.

[The Colonel]

I haven't the energy to answer Fred. If I do, I'll only have to repeat myself for the next thousand years. (And he still won't get it).

[Fred75]

Fred, all I can say is: You must be worried. Obviously I've stuck a thorn in your side that you are desperatly trying to get rid of.

I haven't heard a LEGAL reason from you yet. Natural and unnatural don't come into it. Legal reason please. Something that will stand up in a court of law. If I don't see a legal reason here the next time you post, I shall assume there isn't one.


Thank you for the links, Cambridge.

Name a reason why I cannot sell cocaine to another adult for his own pleasure?

Name a reason why adults cannot use cocaine for their own personal use?

None of these acts hurts another.
How is it they are ILLEGAL?

Why does society stop others from having some fun with drugs behind closed doors when it hurts no one?

[Big Ben]

This survey is not properly constructed.

[Fred75]

This survey is not properly constructed.

Could you make a better one, please?

[Big Ben]

This survey is not properly constructed.

Could you make a better one, please?

The survey should ask something like "Do you believe gay marriage should be recognized by the State". Yes, or no?

There are more than just legal reasons involved. Some people may object to same sex marriage for religious, moral, or economic reasons (married couples receive tax advantages paid for by society). The current survey skews the results and implies that if non-lawyers can't think of a legal reason to oppose gay marriage, then they can't oppose it.

If memory serves me correctly, in 2006, the democrats in the US were toying with the idea of proposing to legalize gay marriage, but decided to back away. It was too controversial.

[The Colonel]

This survey is not properly constructed.

Could you make a better one, please?

The survey should ask something like "Do you believe gay marriage should be recognized by the State". Yes, or no?

There are more than just legal reasons involved. Some people may object to same sex marriage for religious, moral, or economic reasons (married couples receive tax advantages paid for by society). The current survey skews the results and implies that if non-lawyers can't think of a legal reason to oppose gay marriage, then they can't oppose it.

If memory serves me correctly, in 2006, the democrats in the US were toying with the idea of proposing to legalize gay marriage, but decided to back away. It was too controversial.

Only because you are living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

I find it ironic that there is a "separation" between church and state, yet only one religion is officially tolerated (given supremacy) and your President's under no circumstances cannot be non-religious (or seemingly non-christian).

[The Colonel]

A video that proves there is no legal or ethical reason against homosexuality/gay marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&feature=related

Couldn't be more simple. What is natural is not wrong.