 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / August 2006Start a Affair website
I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married but Looking Do you think this is a good idea? Let me know what you think? Regards Martin It is very bad to be bed with another person apart from your married partner. God does not approve of it. Only the weak in spirit will do that. Ask yourself in you are at the receiving side, what will you do? We should learn to appreciate what we have. Thanx and stay blessed John Yakah > I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair > Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Martin >I have just designed a new website called http\\www.affair.st Affair >Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married >but Looking > >Do you think this is a good idea? No, its a filthy, disgusting, small-minded idea. >Let me know what you think?... Well, I think the idea sucks, and I think people who prey on the weak and/or work to perpetuate evil and cause heartbreak ought to drop dead immediately. ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. > >I have just designed a new website called http\\www.affair.st Affair > >Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and/or work to perpetuate evil and cause heartbreak ought to drop dead > immediately. I'm glad you responded. What you wrote was soooo much nicer than what I *thought*. Kitten >I'm glad you responded. What you wrote was soooo much nicer than what >I *thought*. Thank you, Kitten. I've been informed that I ought to make my responses more mellow. So, I'm practicing. Please, go ahead and tell us what you were thinking! I'd love to hear it! :-) ___________________ A dog's life is too short; their only fault really. >>SNIP<< According to this Newsgroup's FAQ: 7) Commercial messages are inappropriate. It is not appropriate to post messages to this newsgroup which advertise a business, product, commercial web site, for-fee services, or multi-level marketing. "Get rich quick schemes and chain letters should not be posted to this group. I am a Newbie to this group, however I think that this extraction from the FAQ should speak to the rather obvious intent of this individual who is promoting a site that is focused on activities that act to strain or break the marriage bond are problematic for this arena. The FAQ also points out that: 1.3) What topics are discussed? Virtually everything pertaining to relationships is discussed, ... Posts attacking marriage in general, or families, will likely be viewed as confrontational or as trolling. My thinking is that a website that openly promotes that it is "The place to start cheating and get away with it!" [Quote from the Website] is openly and actively attacking marriage and all monogamous relationships. I suspect this is an attempt to generate buzz for this work of the devil and the best way to deal with this kind of stuff is to summarily ignore it and remind people that supporting marriage is an important thing and our attention should be focused on doing that here. Let this purveyor of alternative lifestyles peddle this mess-making absurdity in more appropriate places like at the bottom of a prehistoric slime pit or under a rock at the bottom of a crevasse or fissure at the center of the pacific ocean. Yet I could be wrong and there are people in this group who are looking to destroy their marriage not to support it... (could someone let me know so I can shut up and go away if that is the general group intent) Malik On Tue 22 Aug 2006 11:42:21a, wrote: > (could someone let me > know so I can shut up and go away if that is the general group intent) No, the general group intent is to support marriage and committed relationships to my knowledge. As far as whether 'alternate lifestyles' are supported here, I guess I would say it depends on a couple things 1) what the lifestyles are and 2) the individuals posting. I, for one, support gays and lesbians getting married and think it is utterly wrong for the US government officials to put their religious beliefs ahead of someone's constitutional rights. I also have no problem with committed couples who live together without getting married, if they wish. I *do* have a major issue with cheaters and liars, though and would not want to see those supported here. The OP has no business posting his/her crap here.  SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com \If people were happy in marriage they would not go online looking..... you all slate www.affair.st when for years unhappy men visited a local prostitute.. So you would not agree with swingers also, like this iste http://www.realwifeswap.com hope you are all well Matt 666 > \If people were happy in marriage they would not go online looking..... It has nothing to do with *this* groups intent, however, which was the question asked. And this groups FAQ states not to put that crap you're spamming, as well. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com We should note that the real wife swap site is marketed by Martin Waterman's company as well. I say we talk about them, but do all we can to strike their links or contact information from the conversation , such that we don't give him what he wants, but we talk about the issues behind what he is talking about. > > \If people were happy in marriage they would not go online looking..... > > It has nothing to do with *this* groups intent, however, which was the > question asked. > > And this groups FAQ states not to put that crap you're spamming, as well. > \If people were happy in marriage they would not go online looking..... Since when is beoing happy more important than being moral? There is one word for someone whose {sobbing in sympathy] unhappiness drives them to cheat rather than resolve or leave. And I wont say that word here. > you all slate www.affair.st when for years unhappy men visited a local > prostitute.. > > So you would not agree with swingers also, like this iste > http://www.realwifeswap.com Swinging does not involve lying. I don't know that sight, bu there is no dishonesty in swinging. ANd the folks I know who do it don't do it out of unhappiness, quite the opposite. > hope you are all well > > Matt 666 >> \If people were happy in marriage they would not go online looking..... > > Since when is beoing happy more important than being moral? Since now. really pleased you are keep visiting my new site www.affair.st funny how some of the members of this forum have joined... would you like a list of their email addresses... Posted here? thanks Matt > On Tue 22 Aug 2006 11:42:21a, wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > want to see those supported here. The OP has no business posting his/her > crap here. Cal, Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to marry someone of the same sex? I'm just curious as to where this is--because I've been unable to find it. Bo > > On Tue 22 Aug 2006 11:42:21a, wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > someone of the same sex? I'm just curious as to where this is--because I've > been unable to find it. You have to read a little further in. It is called the fourteenth amendment. > > > On Tue 22 Aug 2006 11:42:21a, wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You have to read a little further in. It is called the fourteenth > amendment. Go doug! >>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to marry [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Go doug! Maybe they don't have that one in Georgia yet. <ducks> >>>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > <ducks> Ok.... where in the 14th amendment? I don't see anything about marriage at all....? XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. > >>>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the > >>>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction > the equal protection of the laws. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Right there, Bo! Glad I could help :) Paula > Ok.... where in the 14th amendment? I don't see anything about marriage at all....? "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the *equal* protection of the laws." You may want to try the Ninth just so you can stop looking for certain words. Article IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The notion that because you can't find something in the Constitution gives free reign to outlaw it is the single most UN American idea I've ever encountered, yet it seems to be the mantra of those who wish to "protect" us from ourselves by virtue of their "superior" morals. I've still got the shotgun loaded. ...just in case you knock on my door wondering what I'm doing. > >>>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the > >>>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ok.... where in the 14th amendment? I don't see anything about marriage at > all....? I'l let the Supreme Court answer this. Your next assignment is to go read Loving vs. State of Virginia. > > >>>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the > > >>>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Your next assignment is to go read Loving vs. State of Virginia. I have a tape of the oral argument for that case. A shining moment in our legal history. >> >>>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >> >>>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Your next assignment is to go read Loving vs. State of Virginia. Reading assignment completed and it's interesting. I have no qualms about that case. The question really is "Where do we draw the line in the sand?" on ANY subject. And, what is the 'carved in stone' reference by which we base the decision on where we draw that line? Popular opinion? Majority rule? Minority rule? If folks can argue and win that equal protection means one can marry anyone (regardless of sex), then why can't it be similarly argued that polygamy is legal, and polyandry, and incest, and child marriages? Obviously I don't think any of these are good options. I am curious to know though, what standard (is used by those that believe same sex marriage is OK), to say child marriage or incest is not OK. What is this based on? a good feeling? the majority? logic? I have a standard--the Bible, the Muslim's have their standard-the Koran, but what is the standard that is used to support gay marriage and condemn incest??? Bo > >> >>>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the > >> >>>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > base the decision on where we draw that line? Popular opinion? Majority > rule? Minority rule? Thanks for checking this out with an open mind, Bo. I know you view this differently than I do, so I appreciate the effort. I can give you a little background on 14th Amendment jurisprudence, but I have to tell you that it is a complicated weighing process that changes over time. ANd note this is from memory, so I may have some details wrong. On its face, the 14th amendment forbids *any* sort of discrimination. This obviously can't be the case, because nearly all laws discriminate in some fashion. Burglers have to go to jail, and non-burglers don't, for example. So governments can discriminate if they have a good enough reason. THere are (at least) 3 levels of justification that the government might have to meet depending upon the type of discrimination: (1) Rational basis - nearly all legislation is tested on this basis. If the government has even a kind of good reason, the law stands. (2) Strict scrutiny - this is race based discrimination. Race is a "suspect class" and the government has to have a really good reason to do this. One good reason (according to the courts) is affirmative action to remedy past injustice. The law must be narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest. The third test is the muchy middle and it is called "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny." This is where the goverment has more latitude than strict scrutiny, but must have a better basis than just "rational basis." So the law must be substantially related to an important government interest. This sort of scrutin is applied to gender, and sometimes other groups (elderly, disabled, like that). So, is restricting marriage to two people of different genders but not two people of the same gender legit? First we have to decide what level of scrutiny to apply. If it is intermediate scrutiny (as I think it should be), then the government has to have an important interest and the restriction has to be substantially related to that interest. What is the government's interest here? I don't see "we've always done it that way" passing muster. Also "it makes people squeamish" isn't going to fly. So people bring up things like marriage is supposed to be for raising children. But people who can't have children are allowed to marry, so can that really be an important government interest? And if the government *does* Have an important interest - is this limitation closely realted to that interest? Even if we say that the government does have an important interest in promoting marriage as a basis for having children, wouldn't that be better addressed by making people with children marry, rather than not letting people who won't be having children marry? > If folks can argue and win that equal protection means one can marry anyone > (regardless of sex), then why can't it be similarly argued that polygamy is > legal, and polyandry, and incest, and child marriages? Well, now that you have the framework, you tell me. Would we even need intermediate scrutiny for any of these groups? If so, does the government have an important interest in keeping children from marrying? My opinion is hell yeah. Does the government have an important interest in keeping marriage from comprising more that two people? Again, I'd say no doubt. None of the current marriage laws (statutory or common law) can be applied to more than two parties. It would need to be rethought and rewritten and new case law developed from the ground up. (snip) >>>>>>>> Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>>>>>> Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > On its face, the 14th amendment forbids *any* sort of discrimination. I see. So is it "discrimination" if I'm not allowed to go into the women's bathroom, and you're not allowed to go into the men's bathroom? And if we do, we might even get arrested? Is it "discrimination" if a driver's license is denied to a criminal? >> On its face, the 14th amendment forbids *any* sort of >> discrimination. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Is it "discrimination" if a driver's license is denied to a > criminal? Perhaps you should have read the rest of her post, Bill. Zorra >>> On its face, the 14th amendment forbids *any* sort of >>> discrimination. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Zorra And perhaps some other people should be open to the "remote" possibility that is not necessarily "discrimination" (in one sense of the word) if marriage, PER SE, is denied to anyone other than the union between a man and a woman. (UNLESS you also call the above examples "discrimination" too, in which case it is discrimination). Well, if you want to get technical, I suppose just about everything under the sun can be construed as discrimination, in the broadest sense. > I can give you a little background on 14th Amendment jurisprudence, but > I have to tell you that it is a complicated weighing process that > changes over time. ANd note this is from memory, so I may have some > details wrong. > >SNIP an exceptionally interesting, well thought-out and impressive post. EmmaAnne, that was an incredible post - it's great to hear someone thinking through the actual legal basis for these kinds of decisions and then clearly stating it. Just wow. This is really useful to me, and I will be rereading it again and again - and using it. THANKS. A> > > I can give you a little background on 14th Amendment jurisprudence, but > > I have to tell you that it is a complicated weighing process that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > THANKS. Well thanks Atalanta. How nice to be appreciated. :-) >> Reading assignment completed and it's interesting. I have no qualms about >> that case. The question really is "Where do we draw the line in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks for checking this out with an open mind, Bo. I know you view > this differently than I do, so I appreciate the effort. Just tryin' to understand... thanks. > I can give you a little background on 14th Amendment jurisprudence, but > I have to tell you that it is a complicated weighing process that [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > for raising children. But people who can't have children are allowed to > marry, so can that really be an important government interest? I see your point--but, a big issue to me is that the govt. tries to judge my heart with things like * a hate crime*. How does the govt know what is in anyone's heart? So, the govt then discriminates against persons by inflicting harsher penalties on someone because they killed a gay person as opposed to a straight person. All killing is equally bad, right? So why afford gays *extra*-equal protection under the amendment? I have to cut this short.... will try to finish it later. Thanks, Bo > And if the government *does* Have an important interest - is this > limitation closely realted to that interest? Even if we say that the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > (snip) > I see your point--but, a big issue to me is that the govt. tries to judge my > heart with things like * a hate crime*. How does the govt know what is in > anyone's heart? Well, they take testimony and look at evidence and come to a conclusion. If it is a criminal charge, the proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. You do know that *most* crimes require a particular state of mind right? Intent or knowledge, or at least reckless indifference. Figuring out people's motivations is not a new problem in the law. > So, the govt then discriminates against persons by > inflicting harsher penalties on someone because they killed a gay person as > opposed to a straight person. Incorrect. They mete out additional punishment when the crime is intended to intimidate others in the same group. Hence burning a cross on a black person's lawn might merit more punishment than trespassing and burning litter without a permit. > All killing is equally bad, right? So why > afford gays *extra*-equal protection under the amendment? Because when you, say, beat a gay man to death and dump his body in front of a gay bar with a sign saying "street justice" it affects people beyond the victim and his friends and family. Everyone in his group feels a threat they didn't feel before. Many people feel this sort of thing does not promote the welfare of society. >> I see your point--but, a big issue to me is that the govt. tries to judge my >> heart with things like * a hate crime*. How does the govt know what is in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Many people feel this sort of thing does not promote the welfare of society. Just out of curiosity, and I say this in all seriousness, what does, today? > > All killing is equally bad, right? So why > > afford gays *extra*-equal protection under the amendment? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > feels a threat they didn't feel before. Many people feel this sort of > thing does not promote the welfare of society. Let me also make the obvious point that the existence of different degrees of homicide, of sentencing guidelines making some homicides worse than others, etc, means that all killing is clearly NOT equally bad in the eyes of the law. - Randy ... very helpful overview > (snip) Nice summary, Emma Anne! >> (snip) > > Nice summary, Emma Anne! And such an incisive commentary there, too! > > (snip) > > Nice summary, Emma Anne! At least he actually read what I wrote . . . >>> (snip) >> >> Nice summary, Emma Anne! > > At least he actually read what I wrote . . . Now, now. Is there a snide commentary lurking in there? >>>>>>>> Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>>>>>> Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > changes over time. ANd note this is from memory, so I may have some > details wrong. Commentary: So is the 14 Amendment supposed to be the Holy Grail for Society and MARRIAGE? I sure don't think so. We're talking about something here that is on a higher plane than just the "law" - that is, hopefully what is BEST for society (if we can ever determine that). What the law says may, or may NOT, (and fairly often does not) coincide with that .. that is, with the best Sociological concerns - which are FAR more important than just a "law". > On its face, the 14th amendment forbids *any* sort of discrimination. Which I commented on previously (e.g: can I go into a women's bathroom? If not, is that not discriminatory? (etc) > This obviously can't be the case, because nearly all laws discriminate > in some fashion. Burglers have to go to jail, and non-burglers don't, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (1) Rational basis - nearly all legislation is tested on this basis. Well guess what. It doesn't always succeed, does it. > If the government has even a kind of good reason, the law stands. > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > government have an important interest in keeping children from marrying? > My opinion is hell yeah. Which IS discriminatory, though. Does the government have an important interest > in keeping marriage from comprising more that two people? Again, I'd > say no doubt. Which IS also discriminatory, though. > None of the current marriage laws (statutory or common > law) can be applied to more than two parties. It would need to be > rethought and rewritten and new case law developed from the ground up. So WHAT??? If we're supposedly "rethinking" the definition of marriage to NOW include same sex marriages, again I say, so what? That so-called logic or "reasoning" ("that none of the current marriage laws....") is just as meaningless. > (snip) So..... Certain types of discrimination are considered "ok", and certain types are not! Got it! :-) > >>>>>>>> Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the > >>>>>>>> Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Which I commented on previously (e.g: can I go into a women's bathroom? If > not, is that not discriminatory? (etc) There's quite a bit of case law on this, Bill. The Supreme Court has made a variety of decisions in this arena. You could read up on it. There is however, no longer any legal basis for insisting that a business maintain separate restrooms - it's constitutional NOT to have them. It's not unconstitutional to have them, however, if they are maintained in the same way. You may remember that race/ethnicity has its own amendment. > > This obviously can't be the case, because nearly all laws discriminate > > in some fashion. Burglers have to go to jail, and non-burglers don't, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well guess what. It doesn't always succeed, does it. What alternative would you suggest? I'm not fond of irrational legal decisions, rules or behaviors. > > If the government has even a kind of good reason, the law stands. > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Which IS discriminatory, though. You're misunderstanding the ordinary dictionary definition of "discrimination" and "discriminatory" with the legal definition as used in the United States of America - where everything comes back to the Constitution and its interpretive documents. EmmaAnne has gone to great lengths to explain how this works. If you wish to label every single act of discrimination for us - you'll have to get busy. Every time we use one word in place of another, we are making a "discrimination" - look up the word, you'll see I'm right. But legally, in the United States, the word has a much more specific meaning (and entails some form of harm that would occur either if the discriminations were made - or were not made). > Does the government have an important interest > > in keeping marriage from comprising more that two people? Again, I'd > > say no doubt. > > Which IS also discriminatory, though. Again - you need to start going through every thread and stating this after every statement. Also, marriage itself is discriminatory (we don't marry randomly, and we don't marry everyone - now do we?) This sort of one line response to someone's sincere attempt to explain a difficult legal concept is simply unnecessary. > > None of the current marriage laws (statutory or common > > law) can be applied to more than two parties. It would need to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That so-called logic or "reasoning" ("that none of the current marriage > laws....") is just as meaningless. So was what you just posted. > > (snip) > > So..... Certain types of discrimination are considered "ok", and certain > types are not! Got it! :-) Right - good. Yes, you are not required by law to marry everyone on the planet. You are required by law not to have sex with an infant. You are supposed to possess the ability to discriminate - between infants and partners 18 and over. We do not allow 30 year olds to go to kindergarten - even if they have the IQ of a five year old and the social skills of a 5 year old. That's age discrimination. We do that. We do not allow an employer to use age as a reason to fire or hire someone who is of legal age for employment. Now, in this last case - we stumble upon a very interesting part of the legal system, which is its own ability to enforce itself. Since age discrimination is easily concealed in the workplace, that one requires a great deal of work to prove. However, since people are able to tell that a six month old infant is not 18, readily, it's easier to throw someone in jail for having sex with an infant. If we were to pass laws based on ever more difficult discriminations (ones that most people would have hard time making), they would be uninforceable. So, if we were to pass a law that only men with sperm in their semen were allowed to have sex - and only in the missionary position - and only with women who were legally their wives - and only while their wives were lying on their backs - we could do that, but it would be VERY difficult to enforce. We'd need sperm counts daily and we'd need cameras in every place people might have sex - and a vast army of people to watch the resultant video, since the computer facial recognition systems aren't doing very well. I suppose once all the cameras were installed, we could require that each consenting adult show their picture ID to the camera before beginning. If we were to pass a law that natural redheads were to be excluded from employment, that too would be difficult to enforce. However, in the United States, for some reason (you might want to think about it), we have outlawed discrimination on the basis of skin color, hair color, hair form, etc. I wonder why. Hmmm. If we were to pass a law that stated everyone had to have heterosexual sex or not sex at all - would that be okay? If people are permitted by law to have sex, legally, then they should be permitted to marry (have sex that's recognized by the state as the source of certain advantages). Personally, I think it's ridiculous that married couples get tax benefits not available to singles, that people get tax credits for having children, and so forth. I think that each person should get to designate someone to receive part of their health benefits - if an employer is using a benefit plan as part of the enticement to get someone to take a job. Anyone could be designated - not just a spouse. This preferential treatment given to marrieds does not seem right or fair, in the legal sense. A. >>>>>>>>>> Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>>>>>>>> Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>>> >>>>> Your next assignment is to go read Loving vs. State of Virginia. And I couldn't care less about that. >>>> Reading assignment completed and it's interesting. I have no qualms about >>>> that case. The question really is "Where do we draw the line in the sand?" >>>> on ANY subject. And, what is the 'carved in stone' reference by which we >>>> base the decision on where we draw that line? Popular opinion? Majority [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > There's quite a bit of case law on this, Bill. The Supreme Court has > made a variety of decisions in this arena. You could read up on it. To be perfectly frank, I'm reaally not all that much interested in "the law". If you think "the law" always does what is Best for Society, and is the "End All", then I guess we don't have much more to discuss... > There is however, no longer any legal basis for insisting that a business > maintain separate restrooms - it's constitutional NOT to have them. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > What alternative would you suggest? I'm not fond of irrational > legal decisions, rules or behaviors. Then you must be a bit disappointed (either that, or a bit blind). >>> If the government has even a kind of good reason, the law stands. "good reason" That's (often) a joke. "good", according to whom? The most vocal groups? PC? >>> (2) Strict scrutiny - this is race based discrimination. Race is a >>> "suspect class" and the government has to have a really good reason to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> >>>> If folks can argue and win that equal protection means one can marry anyone >>>> (regardless of sex), then why can't it be similarly argued that polygamy is >>>> legal, and polyandry, and incest, and child marriages? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > used in the United States of America - where everything comes > back to the Constitution and its interpretive documents. You know, I'm not really all that interested in the so called, "legal definition". We're beyond that. (Well, ok, SOME of us think Beyond that). > EmmaAnne has gone to great lengths to explain how this works. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > This sort of one line response to someone's sincere attempt > to explain a difficult legal concept is simply unnecessary. I think (and acknowledge) that Emma made a sincere attempt to explain something that SHE feels is of the utmost importance - something above everything else, known as the law. And that's where we part. >>> None of the current marriage laws (statutory or common >>> law) can be applied to more than two parties. It would need to be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Right - good. Yes, you are not required by law to marry everyone on > the planet. You are required by law not to have sex with an infant. The phrase "by law" again. Is that the Holy Grail to you, and the supposed "End All"? (that apparently was rhetorical). > You are supposed to possess the ability to discriminate - between infants > and partners 18 and over. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > in the United States, for some reason (you might want to think about > it), we have outlawed discrimination on the basis of skin color, hair color, > hair form, etc. I wonder why. Hmmm. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and so forth. I think that each person should get to designate someone > to receive part of their health benefits - if an employer is using a benefit > plan as part of the enticement to get someone to take a job. Anyone > could be designated - not just a spouse. This preferential treatment > given to marrieds does not seem right or fair, in the legal sense. > > A. Hey - did you ever address the "prejudice" and "discrimination" against polygamy and polyandry? If not, why not? Being a little selective there, are we now?? (and don't start in on what "the law" says) A. wrote: snip Did you ever address the (readily apparent) "prejudice" and "discrimination" and "bigotry" against the consideration of polygamy and polyandry for marriage? If so, I musta missed it. (and this, coming from people who vociferously purport to be so "enlightened" and "open-minded", in today's, new "Age of Enlightenment", world) So if not, why not??? Being a little selective here, are we now?? (and please, please, don't start in on "what the existing law currently can support", or that "there hasn't been a big enough and vocal enough demand for it yet", or ... whatever) signed, ISTJ, Guardian At Large. > >> >>>>Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the > >> >>>>Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > base the decision on where we draw that line? Popular opinion? Majority > rule? Minority rule? Here's the way my aged parents explained it to me (and it was explained to them by their parents and so on). This explanation is also consistent with what anthropologists know about human behavior. Consenting adults. That's a key phrase. Consenting adults. Adult. Now, you can go to some of the boards where pedophiles discuss their views - and you can go to a law library and study legal thresholds. It's true that defining adulthood by a calendar always has some problems. Most would agree that 18 is a good enough threshold. Nevertheless, states do permit 16-18 year olds to get married in certain circumstances, usually requiring parental permission (that's sex with children, btw) and even younger girls (not boys) can get married IF they are pregnant and/or marrying the father of a living child that they've produced. In all the states, that girl needs her parents' permission - and usually, the permission of the courts. I don't see any problems with that, do you? That's how we do it. We make laws. As to polygyny and polyandry and even polygamy - there are ways to do it, within the context of laws, and those laws require disclosure to all parties about subsequent future marriages. A person could enter into a marital contract with or without a clause permitting one or both spouses to have future, other spouses. You don't want to be polygynous? Then don't be - don't enter into that contract. Solved. BTW, the United States DOES recognize polygyny - as long as the marriages took place outside the United States and in a place where they are legal. There are any number of wealthy Saudi ladies who are the chief wives of important men who live in Beverly Hills - partly because they do not want to have to deal with living with the co-wives, back home, and their husbands agree this makes things work out better. So, there is absolutely no reason we can't handle this issue in the same manner we handle other things, such as not permitting 4 year olds to marry, punishing people who have sex with CHILDREN, and punishing them MORE the younger the child is (ALL the states have different punishments for extreme pedophiles - people who have sex with very young children - and that's as it should be). Homosexuality is not a crime. There is no reason why being gay should take away ANY rights. Being a pedophile is a crime. Now, while I am firmly in favor of monogamy - I was against state laws that used to prohibit people of the opposite sex from cohabiting without benefit of marriage - and I still am. I do not think the state should have been forcing people to get married or move out of their homes - but they did do that, and I lived through those times (and faced eviction, by the way). I believe that was wrong. I was a consenting ADULT at the time, my sex life is NONE of the state's business. If I am an adult under the law, I can consent to sex. If I can consent to sex, I can consent to marriage. If the U.S. ever sees its way clear to allowing polygyny - yes, it would be by "majority rule," because that's what we live in (a representative democracy in which majorities make laws in the Senate(s) and the House(s). > If folks can argue and win that equal protection means one can marry anyone > (regardless of sex), then why can't it be similarly argued that polygamy is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > standard-the Koran, but what is the standard that is used to support gay > marriage and condemn incest??? Incest IS permitted - if you look at the law. First cousin marriages are permitted in some states, yet in my family, that's clearly incest. Second cousin marriage is permitted in ALL states. Marrying your own child or parent is against the law in EVERY country of the world. In the United States - yes, that was decided by majority rule (not the Bible). Marrying one's siblings is similarly against the law everyone (and in the United States, decided - as all laws are - by majority rule). So - if the majority allows gay marriage, that's exactly what will happen. I don't see why this poses either intellectual or legal problems for you or for anyone - that's how things work. A. >>>>>>> Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>>>>> Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > standard (is used by those that believe same sex marriage is OK), to say > child marriage or incest is not OK. Because there is no REAL "standard" here. It's pretty much ... arbitrary, and brought in by some "popular demand". Well, ok, it's not totally arbitrary, as it responds to the desires of a relatively large and vocal minority group. And if you will notice, no one has ever been able to successfully address the argument of as to why not also allow polygamy, and polyandry, etc, etc, etc. Just saying that there aren't enough people that want that is NOT successfully addressing the issue! > What is this based on? a good feeling? > the majority? logic? I have a standard--the Bible, the Muslim's have their > standard-the Koran, but what is the standard that is used to support gay > marriage and condemn incest??? > > Bo >>>>>>>> Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>>>>>> Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > arbitrary, > and brought in by some "popular demand". And that was/is my point.... Bo >>>>>>>>> Not trying to pick a fight... but could you please give me the >>>>>>>>> Article/paragraph in the constitution that guarantee's the right to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> Reading assignment completed and it's interesting. I have no qualms about >>> that case. The question really is "Where do we draw the line in the sand?" >>> on ANY subject. And, what is the 'carved in stone' reference by which we >>> base the decision on where we draw that line? Popular opinion? Majority >>> rule? Minority rule? >>> >>> If folks can argue and win that equal protection means one can marry anyone >>> (regardless of sex), then why can't it be similarly argued that polygamy is >>> legal, and polyandry, and incest, and child marriages? Obviously I don't >>> think any of these are good options. I am curious to know though, what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bo And that is the point, but they'll never admit that THAT is the REAL reason. (Otherwise we would allow polygamy, polyandry, etc) to be ok for the institution of MARRIAGE, per se). It's just called being PC, and succumbing to the wishes and demands of a vocal minority, because - again - that's the PC thing to do. And being PC is what is "in", in today's, "enlightened" world. >> > On Tue 22 Aug 2006 11:42:21a, wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You have to read a little further in. It is called the fourteenth > amendment. You don't even have to go that far. Try the (forgotten) ninth amendment. yes. i want you to write more of that. > I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair > Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Martin More of what bbbblove? > yes. > i want you to write more of that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Martin In the interest of full disclosure I think that it is fair to point out that the poster "Martin" is very likely Martin Waterman of http://www.webassociate.eu/ I would post his picture, but this venue doesn't allow for that easily. However on looking at his picture he sounds like a demon, but his horns and leathery wings have been airbrushed out of the picture. Based on his business model as explicated in his website his focus is bringing up the Google ratings of companies like the one by getting us to go on and on about it. I think that the best way to deal with him is to ignore him and drop some suggestions to his corporate website letting him know how we feel about his "business practices". Don't scream blindly about the depth of the dark -- turn the gosh darn lights on! BTW for all you spammers and bots out there his email address is info@webassociate.eu . He also appears to be available on MSN chat. I think that he should get a visit during business hours and have an opportunity to hear from us in lieu of his desired business contacts. Take up his time, send him loving notes, add him to the list of people that you send jokes to 1,234 times a day. I think that he is in need of kind and generous friends that will communicate with him repeatedly and constantly to assure that he is able to get the attention that he is looking for. It is also worth mentioning that he appears 14 times in the yesterday alone at a range of sites touting his "services" (see below list) I think that the best thing that we can do is ignore this string and hope that loving attitudes prevail in the world and that the Digimafia find him and experiment with how corrective measures can be taken against those who pollute the world with unwanted absurdity. Lastly and in all seriousness I ask you all to pray for this man and those who are paying for his services. I think that he might change with intervention from a Benevolent albeit slightly irritated Creator. Let his eyes be opened and allow him to see the power of functioning inside the bounds of respecting the love that people share. LIST of MARTIN's Posts Follows ===================================== no strings fun lots of them on http://www.affair.st any married ladies in the coventry area looking for no strings fun? Let me know. uk.adverts.personals - Aug 22, 9:49 am by webassociate - 2 messages - 2 authors is your partner listed on Affair Street nothing wrong at being a little devil alt.support.marriage - Aug 22, 9:46 am by webassociate - 11 messages - 7 authors Affair tips here, how to cheat on your partner Affair tips - How to have a successful affair - from http://www.affair.st Affair Tips how to have a successful affair Never keep credit card slips in your ... Wanting Affairs - Start a affair today - Aug 22, 5:19 am by webassociate - 1 message - 1 author is your partner listed on Affair Street this is a good place to look if your partner is having a affair Visit http://www. affair.st and look if your partners photo is listed on this cheating website ... alt.self-improve - Aug 22, 5:13 am by webassociate - 1 message - 1 author is your partner listed on Affair Street this is a good place to look if your partner is having a affair Visit http://www. affair.st and look if your partners photo is listed on this cheating website ... alt.support.marriage - Aug 22, 5:12 am by webassociate - 11 messages - 7 authors yorkshire bi guy seeking why not try http://www.gay-swing.com mate Attractive bi male late 40's 5'8'' 32 waist, clean shaven great body non smoker, good sized cock, looking to meet ... uk.adverts.personals - Aug 22, 5:08 am by webassociate - 3 messages - 3 authors Affair tips here, how to cheat on your partner Affair tips - How to have a successful affair and get away with it- http://affair. st/static/dating_tips/affairtips.do thank you http://www.affair.st ( Affair ... alt.sex.swingers - Aug 22, 5:06 am by webassociate - 1 message - 1 author Start a Affair website I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married but Looking Do you ... alt.dating.uk.south-east - Aug 22, 4:57 am by webassociate - 8 messages - 6 authors Start a Affair website I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married but Looking Do you ... alt.support.marriage - Aug 22, 4:54 am by webassociate - 14 messages - 12 authors New Affair site for people looking for affairs I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married but Looking Do you ... soc.singles - Aug 22, 4:53 am by www.webassociate.eu - 1 message - 1 author Affair tips here, how to cheat on your partner Affair tips - How to have a successful affair - from http://www.affair.st Affair Tips how to have a successful affair Never keep credit card slips in your ... Wanting Affairs - Start a affair today - Aug 22, 5:19 am by webassociate - 1 message - 1 author Start a Affair website Affair tips - How to have a successful affair and get away with it- http://affair. st/static/dating_tips/affairtips.do thank you http://www.affair.st ( Affair ... uk.singles - Aug 22, 5:09 am by webassociate - 3 messages - 3 authors Affair tips - How to have a successful affair Affair tips - How to have a successful affair and get away with it- http://affair. st/static/dating_tips/affairtips.do thank you http://www.affair.st ( Affair ... uk.adverts.personals - Aug 22, 5:07 am by webassociate - 1 message - 1 author New Affair site for people looking for affairs I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married but Looking Do you ... soc.singles - Aug 22, 4:53 am by www.webassociate.eu - 1 message - 1 author > I have just designed a new website called http://www.dumblink.org Affair > Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Martin Yes Web Associate Designed my site... I thought he done a great job.... Not his fault in anyway.... But dont to me what a great business idea... getting so much bad press and I love it I will get webassociate to email you at : malikbush@gmail.com thank you Matt...... > In the interest of full disclosure I think that it is fair to point out > that the poster "Martin" is very likely Martin Waterman of [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > > > > Martin 'I have just designed a new website called http://www.affair.st Affair Street is the place to start Extramarital Affairs - for the Married but Looking Do you think this is a good idea? Let me know what you think? Regards Martin' REPLY: In this day and age, it might go over real well. However, you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking of destroying marriages and families thru Adultery. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.