Celebrate Diversity

[ezed]

I've tried to abstain from responding to this post and have given up trying to read the messages. But I have absorbed the slant of "White_Male_Canada".

Jesus, you're a pain in the ass. Get a job or a hobby or something. Who gives a flying fuck about what you think. Reflect on that! I don't give a fuck about what I think.

I said you're a pain in the ass. I was wrong! You're a talking ass. I saw one once in the early seventies when I was peyote or mescaline. I was all hard and ready to fuck this beautiful ass, when wouldn't you know it, the ass started bitching at me!

I put on my clothes and ran out of the room.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. With that being said....LET'S CHANGE THIS THREAD TO A CREAMIE PIE THREAD....WHAT SAY YOU!!!!!

[Ecstatic]

More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black

Black and Blackum in both instances were referring to the 1st. Blackmum was not referring to sexual intercourse as you so clearly implied when attempting to tie in the redefinition of marriage in the same paragraph,

" Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage ..."

This is my last response to our revisionist friend as I refuse to continue any discussion with someone who continually tells me what I intended. You may infer what you wish, but my quote of Blackmun regarded the entirety of the principle of separation of church and state (as I see it and have addressed it, not as Black addressed it nor Jefferson for that matter except as Jefferson is a touchstone for the principle in all later debates). I was emphatically NOT quoting Blackmun with reference to sexual intercourse and that was NOT implied. You seem to want to educate us who you apparently see as less educated and knowledgable than yourself, but first you should learn to distinguish between inference and implication.

You'll take the last word, I'm sure, and accuse me of being a cowardly leftist walking away. Great. Have fun preaching to the mirror.

[White_Male_Canada]

More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black

Black and Blackum in both instances were referring to the 1st. Blackmum was not referring to sexual intercourse as you so clearly implied when attempting to tie in the redefinition of marriage in the same paragraph,

" Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage ..."

This is my last response to our revisionist friend as I refuse to continue any discussion with someone who continually tells me what I intended. You may infer what you wish, but my quote of Blackmun regarded the entirety of the principle of separation of church and state (as I see it and have addressed it, not as Black addressed it nor Jefferson for that matter except as Jefferson is a touchstone for the principle in all later debates). I was emphatically NOT quoting Blackmun with reference to sexual intercourse and that was NOT implied. You seem to want to educate us who you apparently see as less educated and knowledgable than yourself, but first you should learn to distinguish between inference and implication.

You'll take the last word, I'm sure, and accuse me of being a cowardly leftist walking away. Great. Have fun preaching to the mirror.

Parse you words all you wish.Give us the Slick Willy "depends what 'is is and was was" tap dance.

Here`s your words:

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage to same sex couples based on the ascendency of the central Christian one man/one woman definition of marriage countravenes this principle.

In one paragraph you try relate the redefinition of marriage with a Providence school prayer case. It is quite clear that Blackmun WAS NOT refering to same sex marriage.

No small inferrance on your part,a clear overt implication, a failed attempt at a logical relation between two wholly different propositions.One being State sponsored school prayer and the other,same sex marriage.

[White_Male_Canada]

What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK

You`re either feigning ignorance to protect your postition or really are out of touch.

You`ve obviously never heard of ,or even read DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal by C.Moser and PJ Kleinplatz.

Professionals from UCLA to Hong Kong in the field of psychiatry and psychology agree that a lack of consent from the child doesn't necessarily mean adult-child sexual relationships are harmful.

You`re either a phony,or a complete moron.

[Ecstatic]

You'll take the last word, I'm sure, and accuse me of being a cowardly leftist walking away. Great. Have fun preaching to the mirror.

Parse you words all you wish.Give us the Slick Willy "depends what 'is is and was was" tap dance.

Here`s your words:

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage to same sex couples based on the ascendency of the central Christian one man/one woman definition of marriage countravenes this principle.

In one paragraph you try relate the redefinition of marriage with a Providence school prayer case. It is quite clear that Blackmun WAS NOT refering to same sex marriage.

No small inferrance on your part,a clear overt implication, a failed attempt at a logical relation between two wholly different propositions.One being State sponsored school prayer and the other,same sex marriage.

OK, so sometimes the mirror speaks back. And guess what, WMC, you are not the fairest in the land. You can quote, but you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.

I will spell it out one last time for you: I was not in any way referencing Blackmun's opinion regarding school prayer nor claiming that he was making a reference to same sex marriage. The portion of his statement which I quoted stands separate from either and is in fact the assertion that a government cannot be founded upon the principle that all its citizens are created equal if it also confers preference to a single faith group. This is the whole of the argument (read carefully now), which Blackmun applied to his opinion regarding school prayer. The same argument equally applies to same sex marriage in the context of this discussion (that is, that the assertion of marriage as being solely between one man and one woman) where any law intended to so delimit marriage in principle and in fact is in opposition to the beliefs of certain faith groups in the US (the aforementioned Unitarians, Friends, Reform Jews, Buddhists, and others).

I'll put it another way. WMC claims "In one paragraph you try relate [sic] the redefinition of marriage with a Providence school prayer case. It is quite clear that Blackmun WAS NOT refering to same sex marriage." I never said he was referring to same sex marriage. He presented his ruling regarding school prayer with reference to a transcendent principle, viz. "A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." This principle holds in many quite different instances, including both school prayer and same sex marriage (and I would argue including "under God" in the pledge of alliegance and a vast array of discrete but related issues). That statement of principle, clearly articulated by Judge Blackmun, is not dependent upon the school prayer case on which he was ruling, but rather the school prayer case was dependent upon it. It is the superior, or ruling, principle which he was citing relative to the specific case. It is perfectly justifiable to cite that same principle, and to quote Blackmun's succinct statement of said principle, with regard to other issues such as same sex marriage.