I really hate that you guys have brought me down to your level... i am a
nice person, really a very nice person.... regardless of all the thoughtless
comments about my intelligence, regardless of all the comments about my lack
of ability to communicate like *real men*. regardless of my refusing to
conform to the norm and Capitalize every DAMN THING!!!!!!! if you ask me,
you all try to out pompous each other... and at whose expense?... (Daniel
and a few others are exceptions.. Ted is trying to teach me how to
communicate effectively; Daniel is a wealth of knowledge and can see through
my supposed lack of intelligence and see that my heart is good and he has an
innate ability to INTERPRET to you *men* out there, what I, as a stupid
female, am trying to say....) Do all you men treat your mothers, wives,
sweethearts, significant others with such disdain and disrespect?.... i pity
the poor women in your lives it you do.


And i am still waiting on a response about the "TROUBLE" i am going to get
into.. veiled threats?

since you all have gotten rid of me one way, i will respond another....
thanks guys!!! just proves my point...


"Sparky" > wrote in message
. net...
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Abeness wrote:
>>
>>> vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the "character"
>>> (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their establishment, but
>>> I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. I wouldn't want my
>>> customers to walk in when two people were sucking on each other, for
>>> example. That's not the environment I'd want in my business. But the
>>> line is a difficult one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant"
>>> homosexuals would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks
>>> in times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be
>>> offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail.
>>>
>>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal freedom
>>> of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more complicated
>>> than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for many is simple
>>> the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating against
>>> homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on their skin
>>> color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they possibly
>>> choose otherwise.
>>
>>
>> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me to
>> marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
>>
>>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even
>>>> if
>>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a point here. ;-)
>>>
>>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
>>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact would
>>> be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just think of
>>> the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your
>>> hypothesis!
>>>
>>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
>>>> discrimination
>>>> is always unconstitutional.
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
>>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is
>>> favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent
>>> abuse of power with these laws.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
>>>> hell
>>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>>>
>>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is (or
>>> should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see
>>> heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't
>>> want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I
>>> sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't believe
>>> what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication" by
>>> anyone.
>>
>>
>> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
>>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.
>>
>>
>> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government sanction,
>> encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - after all -
>> that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove otherwise.
>
> KNOTHEAD!