Question:
Yes it’s obviously him that’s deranged… Idiot…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Read below for information on who this deranged psycho is:
Response:
cancels for usenet posts he doesn’t like. Keep an eye out and monitor the control.cancel newsgroup. He usually forges your name and e-mail address. Read below for information on who this deranged psycho is: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS About J F M E Z E I 1. Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups. He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. 2. How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3. Where does he live? Montreal, Quebec, Canada Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 4. What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless. Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end. He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear anything you say!" 5. What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex. He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest. If he can’t do that then he’ll just start making lewd posts. 6. What does he hate about the USA? Everything! He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly. The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can’t stand it. Some of JF’s favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7. What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best. No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women’s genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) … the list is endless. 8. Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years. He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world. Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims). As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy. His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9. What’s his interest in child sexuality? That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky. Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy’s foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls’ hymens. He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don’t grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys’ penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys’ penises. 10. Ewww! This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute! Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself. There’s over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11. How can I find all that out, doesn’t he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course! See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12. So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn’t he work? Ha ha ha! JF hasn’t worked a day in his life! He’s an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night. In his free time when he isn’t trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13. That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo! JF is a boy in a grown man’s body. Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14. Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes! JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room. He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins. He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised. He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15. Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts! He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane. He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him. The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM. To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA. Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words. He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak. Then he turned his attention to aviation. Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil). So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings. He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation. He has never recovered from this. 16. Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades. JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore. It’s really pathetic! 17. Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups. For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he’s so famous for. But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18. It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn’t troll. Pretty much. For a megatroll like JF it’s impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won’t find out what a major netkook he is. 19. Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly. Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms. And while you’re at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too. And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. 20. What else can I do? Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely. Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc. *** APPENDIX *** List of some of the many trolling aliases used by Mezei over the years. This is only a partial list, he has so many it’s impossible to compile a full list. … read more »
Response:
Seems like Mr. Anon is the only one who cares, he is a balless, friendless geek that has a hardon for JF
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who cares.. JF Mezei is up to one of his old tricks again, issuing rogue cancels for usenet posts he doesn’t like. Keep an eye out and monitor the control.cancel newsgroup. He usually forges your name and e-mail address. Read below on who this deranged psycho is: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS About J F M E Z E I 1. Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups. He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. 2. How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3. Where does he live? Montreal, Quebec, Canada Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 4. What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless. Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end. He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear anything you say!" 5. What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex. He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest. If he can’t do that then he’ll just start making lewd posts. 6. What does he hate about the USA? Everything! He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly. The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can’t stand it. Some of JF’s favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7. What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best. No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women’s genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) … the list is endless. 8. Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years. He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world. Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims). As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy. His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9. What’s his interest in child sexuality? That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky. Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy’s foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls’ hymens. He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don’t grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys’ penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys’ penises. 10. Ewww! This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute! Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself. There’s over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11. How can I find all that out, doesn’t he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course! See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12. So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn’t he work? Ha ha ha! JF hasn’t worked a day in his life! He’s an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night. In his free time when he isn’t trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13. That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo! JF is a boy in a grown man’s body. Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14. Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes! JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room. He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins. He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised. He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15. Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts! He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane. He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him. The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM. To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA. Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words. He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak. Then he turned his attention to aviation. Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil). So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings. He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation. He has never recovered from this. 16. Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades. JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore. It’s really pathetic! 17. Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups. For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he’s so famous for. But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18. It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn’t troll. Pretty much. For a megatroll like JF it’s impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won’t find out what a major netkook he is. 19. Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly. Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms. And while you’re at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too. And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 20. What else can I do? Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely. Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc. *** APPENDIX *** List of some of the many trolling aliases used by Mezei over the years. This is only a partial list, he has so many it’s impossible to compile a full list. nobody
… read more »
Response:
JF Mezei is up to one of his old tricks again, issuing rogue cancels for usenet posts he doesn’t like. Keep an eye out and monitor the control.cancel newsgroup. He usually forges your name and e-mail address. Read below on who this deranged psycho is: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS About J F M E Z E I 1. Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups. He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. 2. How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3. Where does he live? Montreal, Quebec, Canada Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 4. What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless. Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end. He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear anything you say!" 5. What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex. He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest. If he can’t do that then he’ll just start making lewd posts. 6. What does he hate about the USA? Everything! He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly. The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can’t stand it. Some of JF’s favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7. What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best. No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women’s genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) … the list is endless. 8. Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years. He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world. Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims). As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy. His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9. What’s his interest in child sexuality? That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky. Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy’s foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls’ hymens. He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don’t grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys’ penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys’ penises. 10. Ewww! This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute! Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself. There’s over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11. How can I find all that out, doesn’t he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course! See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12. So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn’t he work? Ha ha ha! JF hasn’t worked a day in his life! He’s an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night. In his free time when he isn’t trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13. That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo! JF is a boy in a grown man’s body. Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14. Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes! JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room. He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins. He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised. He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15. Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts! He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane. He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him. The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM. To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA. Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words. He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak. Then he turned his attention to aviation. Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil). So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings. He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation. He has never recovered from this. 16. Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades. JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore. It’s really pathetic! 17. Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups. For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he’s so famous for. But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18. It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn’t troll. Pretty much. For a megatroll like JF it’s impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won’t find out what a major netkook he is. 19. Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly. Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms. And while you’re at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too. And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. 20. What else can I do? Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely. Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc. *** APPENDIX *** List of some of the many trolling aliases used by Mezei over the years. This is only a partial list, he has so many it’s impossible to compile a full list. Flatulent Meatus … read more »
Response:
Who cares.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -JF Mezei is up to one of his old tricks again, issuing rogue cancels for usenet posts he doesn’t like. Keep an eye out and monitor the control.cancel newsgroup. He usually forges your name and e-mail address. Read below on who this deranged psycho is: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS About J F M E Z E I 1. Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups. He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. 2. How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3. Where does he live? Montreal, Quebec, Canada Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 4. What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless. Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end. He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear anything you say!" 5. What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex. He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest. If he can’t do that then he’ll just start making lewd posts. 6. What does he hate about the USA? Everything! He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly. The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can’t stand it. Some of JF’s favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7. What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best. No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women’s genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) … the list is endless. 8. Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years. He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world. Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims). As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy. His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9. What’s his interest in child sexuality? That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky. Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy’s foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls’ hymens. He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don’t grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys’ penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys’ penises. 10. Ewww! This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute! Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself. There’s over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11. How can I find all that out, doesn’t he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course! See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12. So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn’t he work? Ha ha ha! JF hasn’t worked a day in his life! He’s an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night. In his free time when he isn’t trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13. That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo! JF is a boy in a grown man’s body. Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14. Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes! JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room. He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins. He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised. He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15. Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts! He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane. He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him. The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM. To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA. Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words. He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak. Then he turned his attention to aviation. Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil). So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings. He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation. He has never recovered from this. 16. Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades. JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore. It’s really pathetic! 17. Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups. For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he’s so famous for. But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18. It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn’t troll. Pretty much. For a megatroll like JF it’s impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won’t find out what a major netkook he is. 19. Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly. Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms. And while you’re at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too. And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. 20. What else can I do? Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely. Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc. *** APPENDIX *** List of some of the many trolling aliases used by Mezei over the years. This is only a partial list, he has so many it’s impossible to compile a full list. Monica Lewinski
… read more »
Response:
Question:
But being an atheist, you have no proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated, e.g. in principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a constitution.
Your inability to understand just laws without faith does not mean you can Mark Johnson (Project) them onto others. I do hold certain rights to be inherent. I know I and many follow what is often known as the golden rule. This is not based on faith, but on simple morality gained by thinking about it, rather than being told it. I can realise why it is wrong to hurt others, why do you think you need to be told it is wrong? — Alan "Ferrit" Ferris ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(")
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. can you define equal rights? Yes. Ok than do so. Certainly. right 1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. Now tack on this to the above: Main Entry: 1equal Pronunciation Guide Pronunciation: kwl Function: adjective 1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another or others : LIKE <equal quantities of bread for each man <each placed an equal distance from the door <equal pay for equal workb : like, as great as, or the same as another or others in degree, worth, quality, nature, ability, or status <held men to be equal in the sight of God <work equal to his best ; specifically : receiving or entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to <all men are created equal — U.S. Declaration of Independence c : like, as great, or the same for each member of a group or class <failing to provide equal opportunities : uniform in quantity or quality, measure or degree <an equal pressure throughout the system 2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : IMPARTIAL <in equal care to nourish lord in hall or beast in stall — Sidney Lanier <authors of the past and present should be judged with equal eyes — F.O.Matthiessen : FAIR, JUST <equal laws So, just to spell it out: equal rights: entitlements to entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. And then we have : civil rights n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts. And, as fate would have it, no less an authority than the SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a civil right. And not just civil, but basic and fundamental (cf Loving v. Virginia) I really wasn’t looking for a dictionary quote. And I wasn’t really looking to argue what the words mean, so I didn’t bother paraphrasing. For example, atheists don’t believe in natural rights. So? Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That’s it. Atheism is irrelevant to the law.
natural law has more to do with morals than law. How does one determine a law is immoral? Also "Positive civil rights" are not intrinsic. They are mearly the laws the people pass to govern themselves by according to the culture they want to have in. We the people can pass positive laws resticting marriage contracts. The question is whether those *positive* laws are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust? 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right? 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
Unjust laws have traditionally been defined by weighing the relavence to natural law theory. That brings in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest do this? 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right? 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
In a secular world civil rights are subjective. In ethics subjectivism is referred to as non-cognative to anti-realism. They aren’t objective. So the problem comes down to defining what is a civil right and that by necessaity must be arbitrated, arbitrary. Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}? life = liberty=pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no proclivity to ethical realism You wish.
hmmm. I don’t think understand what’s involved here. I’ve never met an athiest who was a moral realist/objectivist. Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral relativism (sorry for the redundancy). Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That’s it. Atheism is irrelevant to the law.
I’m a moral realist. Moral relativism is subjectivism applied intersubjectively to a social group. and therefore rights are arbitrated,
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – e.g. in principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a constitution. No. EG, suffrage. Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and treated as EQUALS before the law. Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold….all men are created equal…." is not restricted to citizens. But that’s not what I was asking. Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves are not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal. Very Orwellian.
No. Very Jeffersonian. Your right to liberty doesn’t trump someone else’s right to life. Your right to happiness doesn’t trump someone else’s right to liberty. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is a business man’s rights being violated if he travels regularly and can’t have a different marriage partner in two or more states? No. Why not? Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license. Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and SSM. You’re arguing from both sides of the fence. No. I am arguing one issue, and it’s not number. Marriage is different from civil unions in that procreation is at least implied. In your non-legal opinion. Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only one individual? Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just asked. "to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP… Nice backpedal. clarifying isn’t backpedaling. Changing the meaning of what you wrote is.
I don’t know of any marriage being a one way street. Marriage contracts are obviously between at least two people. ONLY two people.
ONLY because that is how the law is written. BUT is this law an UNjust law? I’m getting from you that a law retricting gays from marriage would be an unjust law. If that is so then why would it be? I think this is are the cruxes of this debate. If any consenting adults are retricted, by law, from marriage are there any rights being … read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy. As often in this life, those who shout the most about being moral, are the leaders of immoral acts. And I knew this already. BTW, do I get a toaster oven with that welcome? I am still struggling to understand why churches want a say in Civil marriages. Because Christianity in this country thinks they have the monopoly, trademark, and copyright on marriage. Fortunately in the UK people are waking up to the fact that even though they put themselves as Christian on forms, less than half of them believe in God. I must admit, I think I quite like my nation of mainly Godless Christians. They do much less harm than when we were a nation of Godly Christians.
<sigh I wish we could say the same here in Bushistan. Which always makes me feel really sad for those Christians who are trying to make the best out of this crazy world. To have to share the same faith as Mark Johnson and others would drive me crazy.
Aye, there’s the rub: MJ claims he’s not of the same faith as Catholics.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy. As often in this life, those who shout the most about being moral, are the leaders of immoral acts. And I knew this already. BTW, do I get a toaster oven with that welcome? I am still struggling to understand why churches want a say in Civil marriages. Because Christianity in this country thinks they have the monopoly, trademark, and copyright on marriage.
Fortunately in the UK people are waking up to the fact that even though they put themselves as Christian on forms, less than half of them believe in God. I must admit, I think I quite like my nation of mainly Godless Christians. They do much less harm than when we were a nation of Godly Christians. Which always makes me feel really sad for those Christians who are trying to make the best out of this crazy world. To have to share the same faith as Mark Johnson and others would drive me crazy. — Alan "Ferrit" Ferris ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(")
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert. Spoken like a true theist bigot. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. You’re as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you. Sure, you’re an atheist. <wink wink Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are. I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being a religious bigot? Yes. How can he/she be religious if he/she’s an atheist? (HINT: what’s the difference between "bigoted against religion" and "religious bigot"?) he’s a bigot, an intollerent bigot towards others beliefs in these news groups that he trolls. Most athiests ignore him, I’ve been told.
Then I don’t feel so bad about relegating that cretin to my twitfile. And yes, there are bigots among atheists. Atheists are human too, just like theists, with the same foibles, prejudices, and character flaws. We just have the brains not to blame the above on the word of an imaginary friend. Catholic morality comes from Natural Law Theory. Read Aquinas.
Like I said, atheists just have the brains not to blame the above on an imaginary friend. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren’t as tolerant as they put themselves out to be. Sweetie, let me be absolutely clear: Tolerant does not mean that I have to shut up and listen to some bigot’s bullshit. Tolerant means that I do nothing to impede said bigot from spewing its smegmous drivel wherever it wishes. (It’s a concept called freedom of speech). I am not obligated to listen. I am not obligated to support it, or to even acknowledge that a bigot might have a cogent point. I am not obligated to accept any bigoted rant as valid. I am not even obligated to be polite about responding. And yet, by responding, I am proving my tolerance, by acknowledging the bigots’ POV and providing an "audience," as it were, for them to air their petty gripes, based on animus. I’m way beyond tolerant. Bigots just get cranky because I won’t shut up. I’m not cranky but you seem to be pretty emotional.
Not really, considering. Although, I have to wonder how many times I have to read that any SSM I might have in the future will result in someone else (or me) marrying a dog, a parent, a sibling, having multiple marriage partners, etc., before I am allowed to take it personally. I also wonder how many times I have to read gays only have sex, you’re not worthy of a marriage like my good, right, and holy marriage because I’m better than you, gay men will rape your sons, you fag activists have no business standing up for equal rights, you should know your place and just be content to live your life, etc., before I’m allowed to respond in kind. I’ve tried responding politely and as a gay man, I have tried to put a "human face" on the issue, in the misguided belief that a personal touch like that might make it harder to spread the hate. I was wrong. This whole SSM debate isn’t about marriage. It’s about how profoundly some people hate others. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy. As often in this life, those who shout the most about being moral, are the leaders of immoral acts.
And I knew this already. BTW, do I get a toaster oven with that welcome? I am still struggling to understand why churches want a say in Civil marriages.
Because Christianity in this country thinks they have the monopoly, trademark, and copyright on marriage.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. can you define equal rights? Yes. Ok than do so. Certainly. right 1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. Now tack on this to the above: Main Entry: 1equal Pronunciation Guide Pronunciation: kwl Function: adjective 1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another or others : LIKE <equal quantities of bread for each man <each placed an equal distance from the door <equal pay for equal workb : like, as great as, or the same as another or others in degree, worth, quality, nature, ability, or status <held men to be equal in the sight of God <work equal to his best ; specifically : receiving or entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to <all men are created equal — U.S. Declaration of Independence c : like, as great, or the same for each member of a group or class <failing to provide equal opportunities : uniform in quantity or quality, measure or degree <an equal pressure throughout the system 2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : IMPARTIAL <in equal care to nourish lord in hall or beast in stall — Sidney Lanier <authors of the past and present should be judged with equal eyes — F.O.Matthiessen : FAIR, JUST <equal laws So, just to spell it out: equal rights: entitlements to entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. And then we have : civil rights n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts. And, as fate would have it, no less an authority than the SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a civil right. And not just civil, but basic and fundamental (cf Loving v. Virginia) I really wasn’t looking for a dictionary quote.
And I wasn’t really looking to argue what the words mean, so I didn’t bother paraphrasing. For example, atheists don’t believe in natural rights.
So? Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That’s it. Atheism is irrelevant to the law. Also "Positive civil rights" are not intrinsic. They are mearly the laws the people pass to govern themselves by according to the culture they want to have in. We the people can pass positive laws resticting marriage contracts. The question is whether those *positive* laws are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust?
1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right? 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law? That brings in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest do this?
1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right? 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law? Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}? life = liberty=pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no proclivity to ethical realism
You wish. Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral relativism (sorry for the redundancy). Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That’s it. Atheism is irrelevant to the law. and therefore rights are arbitrated,
e.g. in principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a constitution.
No. EG, suffrage. Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and treated as EQUALS before the law. Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold….all men are created equal…." is not restricted to citizens. But that’s not what I was asking. Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves are not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal.
Very Orwellian. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is a business man’s rights being violated if he travels regularly and can’t have a different marriage partner in two or more states? No. Why not? Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license. Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and SSM. You’re arguing from both sides of the fence.
No. I am arguing one issue, and it’s not number. Marriage is different from civil unions in that procreation is at least implied.
In your non-legal opinion. Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only one individual? Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just asked. "to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP… Nice backpedal. clarifying isn’t backpedaling.
Changing the meaning of what you wrote is. Marriage contracts are obviously between at least two people.
ONLY two people. Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is automaticly restricting mormans’ religious freedom. No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That’s part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their church, as their church allows. In the eyes of the law, though, it’s one spouse at a time. Number!= gender. The above strawman is irrelevant. But that could also be held to be unconstitutional.
I suppose it could be. But that is a different argument, and one in which I have no interest in pursuing, as thae issue of number of partners is irrelevant to the issue of the gender/sex of the two partners. They can make the exact argument that gays are making.
But that is a different argument, and one in which I have no interest in pursuing, as thae issue of number of partners is irrelevant to the issue of the gender/sex of the two partners. Marriage is more than contract. Not in the eyes of the law. You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your marriage any way you wish. Then why put forth civil unions? Why have different tax rate for those who marry?
The pro-SSM argument is not for civil unions, hence the M is SSM. The ability to file a joint tax return is one of 1000+ rights and priveleges conferred by marriage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people. This is not the case in the one state where CU’s are permitted. Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be prevented, by law, from marriage? Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction. But
… read more »
Response:
Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment.
Ironically, in your very jest, you’d rather uncovered both the actual solution and identified the heart of the problem. You see, marriage has no rightful place in government nor in law. You must either accept marriage as a universally acceptable social contract between any two partner types (so long as they are both of legal contractual age, etc…) in which case certain privileges are guaranteed without discrimination OR You accept that marriage is a purely religious institution, in which case the government can promote no ritual, nor impose any sanction on those that elect this rite. It is akin to having tax benefits only for people that make a bar/bat-mitvah. Clearly it is a rather overlooked affront to the proclaimed seperation of church and state. It must be self-evident that the dilemma must arise because there are deeply held religious beliefs. And I don’t pretend to have a way to reconcile those that believe one way with those that believe quite the opposite. So we have, using a religious allusion, a Solomon baby dilemma. If the piously and genuinely religious truly respect the institute of marriage, then they will allow it to be removed from the sovereignty of the state and placed under the ministries of the various religious authorities. In which case, some religion will permit (even if it’s not a currently extant religion) gay marriages. If the fanatics force the gov’t to handle the issue by legislative decrees, then the issue must be handled in a non-discriminatory manner, or we endanger the rights of absolutely everyone. What would be next — a tax paid only by shiksas (non-Jewish women), or perhaps a tax-refund only for Imams.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert. Spoken like a true theist bigot. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. You’re as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you. Sure, you’re an atheist. <wink wink Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are. I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being a religious bigot? Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren’t as tolerant as they put themselves out to be. As put forth by another liberal: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/28/93208.shtml http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/John_Stossel_QA_0401… This guy is one of the last living fossiles that will die out eventually. Soon they will all be no where other than history. Become liberal of die. You have no other option.
There’s always the pod people…….
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert. Spoken like a true theist bigot. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. You’re as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you. Sure, you’re an atheist. <wink wink Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are. I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being a religious bigot? Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren’t as tolerant as they put themselves out to be. As put forth by another liberal: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/28/93208.shtml http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/John_Stossel_QA_0401…
This guy is one of the last living fossiles that will die out eventually. Soon they will all be no where other than history. Become liberal of die. You have no other option. Shan
Response:
I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy.
Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy. As often in this life, those who shout the most about being moral, are the leaders of immoral acts. I am still struggling to understand why churches want a say in Civil marriages. — Alan "Ferrit" Ferris ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(")
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert. Spoken like a true theist bigot. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. You’re as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you. Sure, you’re an atheist. <wink wink Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are. I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being a religious bigot? Yes. How can he/she be religious if he/she’s an atheist? (HINT: what’s the difference between "bigoted against religion" and "religious bigot"?)
he’s a bigot, an intollerent bigot towards others beliefs in these news groups that he trolls. Most athiests ignore him, I’ve been told. And yes, there are bigots among atheists. Atheists are human too, just like theists, with the same foibles, prejudices, and character flaws. We just have the brains not to blame the above on the word of an imaginary friend.
Catholic morality comes from Natural Law Theory. Read Aquinas. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren’t as tolerant as they put themselves out to be. Sweetie, let me be absolutely clear: Tolerant does not mean that I have to shut up and listen to some bigot’s bullshit. Tolerant means that I do nothing to impede said bigot from spewing its smegmous drivel wherever it wishes. (It’s a concept called freedom of speech). I am not obligated to listen. I am not obligated to support it, or to even acknowledge that a bigot might have a cogent point. I am not obligated to accept any bigoted rant as valid. I am not even obligated to be polite about responding. And yet, by responding, I am proving my tolerance, by acknowledging the bigots’ POV and providing an "audience," as it were, for them to air their petty gripes, based on animus. I’m way beyond tolerant. Bigots just get cranky because I won’t shut up.
I’m not cranky but you seem to be pretty emotional. Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. can you define equal rights? Yes. Ok than do so. Certainly. right 1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. Now tack on this to the above: Main Entry: 1equal Pronunciation Guide Pronunciation: kwl Function: adjective 1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another or others : LIKE <equal quantities of bread for each man <each placed an equal distance from the door <equal pay for equal workb : like, as great as, or the same as another or others in degree, worth, quality, nature, ability, or status <held men to be equal in the sight of God <work equal to his best ; specifically : receiving or entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to <all men are created equal — U.S. Declaration of Independence c : like, as great, or the same for each member of a group or class <failing to provide equal opportunities : uniform in quantity or quality, measure or degree <an equal pressure throughout the system 2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : IMPARTIAL <in equal care to nourish lord in hall or beast in stall — Sidney Lanier <authors of the past and present should be judged with equal eyes — F.O.Matthiessen : FAIR, JUST <equal laws So, just to spell it out: equal rights: entitlements to entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. And then we have : civil rights n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts. And, as fate would have it, no less an authority than the SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a civil right. And not just civil, but basic and fundamental (cf Loving v. Virginia)
I really wasn’t looking for a dictionary quote. For example, atheists don’t believe in natural rights. Also "Positive civil rights" are not intrinsic. They are mearly the laws the people pass to govern themselves by according to the culture they want to have in. We the people can pass positive laws resticting marriage contracts. The question is whether those *positive* laws are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust? That brings in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest do this? Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
life = liberty=pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated, e.g. in principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a constitution. Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and treated as EQUALS before the law.
Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold….all men are created equal…." is not restricted to citizens. But that’s not what I was asking. Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves are not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is a business man’s rights being violated if he travels regularly and can’t have a different marriage partner in two or more states? No. Why not? Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license. Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and SSM.
You’re arguing from both sides of the fence. Marriage is different from civil unions in that procreation is at least implied. Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only one individual? Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just asked. "to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP… Nice backpedal.
clarifying isn’t backpedaling. Marriage contracts are obviously between at least two people. Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is automaticly restricting mormans’ religious freedom. No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That’s part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their church, as their church allows. In the eyes of the law, though, it’s one spouse at a time. Number!= gender. The above strawman is irrelevant.
But that could also be held to be unconstitutional. They can make the exact argument that gays are making. Marriage is more than contract. Not in the eyes of the law. You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your marriage any way you wish.
Then why put forth civil unions? Why have different tax rate for those who marry? Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people. This is not the case in the one state where CU’s are permitted. Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be prevented, by law, from marriage? Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction.
She was also a minor. Point was, though. there is no practical reason to restict gays from marrying their first cousins. There is, however, a practical biological reason for resticting marriage between hetro cousins. But if you allow this marriage for gays and not hetros then rights are not held equally any more. Intuitively, one feels something else is involved in marriage than simply civil unions. What reason would there be for doing so? Ask the two gay cousins. Don’t be surprised if they tell you to MYOB, since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever. If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would now have marrying privileges not available to hetros. No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed.
You waffle between rights and rules. This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling legal reason to deny same-sex marriage.
It’s a philosophical perspective. Consanguinity is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
It’s a rule impossed on marriage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love from New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy lover from the same state… or any of other states with the similar age of consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict *progressive* parents from giving such consent? http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child’s"
… read more »
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. can you define equal rights? Yes. Ok than do so.
Certainly. right 1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. Now tack on this to the above: Main Entry: 1equal Pronunciation Guide Pronunciation: kwl Function: adjective 1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another or others : LIKE <equal quantities of bread for each man <each placed an equal distance from the door <equal pay for equal workb : like, as great as, or the same as another or others in degree, worth, quality, nature, ability, or status <held men to be equal in the sight of God <work equal to his best ; specifically : receiving or entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to <all men are created equal — U.S. Declaration of Independence c : like, as great, or the same for each member of a group or class <failing to provide equal opportunities : uniform in quantity or quality, measure or degree <an equal pressure throughout the system 2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : IMPARTIAL <in equal care to nourish lord in hall or beast in stall — Sidney Lanier <authors of the past and present should be judged with equal eyes — F.O.Matthiessen : FAIR, JUST <equal laws So, just to spell it out: equal rights: entitlements to entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has or is entitled to, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. And then we have : civil rights n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts. And, as fate would have it, no less an authority than the SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a civil right. And not just civil, but basic and fundamental (cf Loving v. Virginia) Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and treated as EQUALS before the law. Is a business man’s rights being violated if he travels regularly and can’t have a different marriage partner in two or more states? No. Why not?
Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license. Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and SSM. Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only one individual? Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just asked. "to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP…
Nice backpedal. Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is automaticly restricting mormans’ religious freedom.
No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That’s part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their church, as their church allows. In the eyes of the law, though, it’s one spouse at a time. Number!= gender. The above strawman is irrelevant. Marriage is more than contract.
Not in the eyes of the law. You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your marriage any way you wish. Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
This is not the case in the one state where CU’s are permitted. Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be prevented, by law, from marriage?
Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction. What reason would there be for doing so?
Ask the two gay cousins. Don’t be surprised if they tell you to MYOB, since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever. If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed. This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling legal reason to deny same-sex marriage. Consanguinity is irrelevant to the issue of gender. Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love from New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy lover from the same state… or any of other states with the similar age of consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict *progressive* parents from giving such consent? http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child’s" welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to give informed consent, then yes. Age of consent is not by the child but, rather, by the parent(s).
No. The age of consent is a well-defined legal term in each jurisdiction. You are conflating AOC with emancipation of a minor. If the AOC for marriage is 14, then a 14 year old can get married. As I have already explained, the loophole in that is that the consenting "child" has not reached the age of majority, and for those under the age of majority, the state is still legally obligated, if requested and if sufficient legal reason exists, to ensure the education and welfare of said "child." If the parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the parents give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how could the state intervene?
The hypothetical parents’ consent is irrelevant, if the person in question has reached AOC. IIRC, only the parents have legal standing to question the "child’s" legal competency to enter into a marriage, and the parents approve, they probably wouldn’t make such a challenge. ("Child" in quotes because we are talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is still considered a minor in some respects.) This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it’s none of your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever. It affects my society. That makes it my business.
It’s my society too, Hoss. And I want SSM to be legal. Your simple imagining trounces no one’s right to have their grievances redressed in court. Nor does your imagining give YOU legal standing to deny anyone’s rights. You have to give a compelling legal argument to show why SSM should be denied. And I hate to break it to you, but the anti-SSM crowd has spent millions of dollars on the best legal representation to contest this in courts. And all 4 times the issue has come before state supreme courts, the anti-SSM crowd has lost, 100% of the time. It also affects you only in some imaginary, intangible way. SSM will NOT invalidate anyone else’s marriage. SSM is about gender, not any other slippery slope crap you can fabricate. SSM is a legal issue, not subject to the flights of fancy of any religion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just as my opinion that 13 is too young to get married has no bearing on
… read more »
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert. Spoken like a true theist bigot. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. You’re as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you. Sure, you’re an atheist. <wink wink Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are. I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being a religious bigot?
Yes. How can he/she be religious if he/she’s an atheist? (HINT: what’s the difference between "bigoted against religion" and "religious bigot"?) And yes, there are bigots among atheists. Atheists are human too, just like theists, with the same foibles, prejudices, and character flaws. We just have the brains not to blame the above on the word of an imaginary friend. Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren’t as tolerant as they put themselves out to be.
Sweetie, let me be absolutely clear: Tolerant does not mean that I have to shut up and listen to some bigot’s bullshit. Tolerant means that I do nothing to impede said bigot from spewing its smegmous drivel wherever it wishes. (It’s a concept called freedom of speech). I am not obligated to listen. I am not obligated to support it, or to even acknowledge that a bigot might have a cogent point. I am not obligated to accept any bigoted rant as valid. I am not even obligated to be polite about responding. And yet, by responding, I am proving my tolerance, by acknowledging the bigots’ POV and providing an "audience," as it were, for them to air their petty gripes, based on animus. I’m way beyond tolerant. Bigots just get cranky because I won’t shut up.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert. Spoken like a true theist bigot. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. You’re as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you. Sure, you’re an atheist. <wink wink Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are.
I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being a religious bigot? Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren’t as tolerant as they put themselves out to be. As put forth by another liberal: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/28/93208.shtml http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/John_Stossel_QA_0401… Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. can you define equal rights? Yes.
Ok than do so. Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights? Is a business man’s rights being violated if he travels regularly and can’t have a different marriage partner in two or more states? No.
Why not? Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only one individual? Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just asked.
"to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP… Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is automaticly restricting mormans’ religious freedom. Marriage is more than contract. Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people. Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be prevented, by law, from marriage? What reason would there be for doing so? If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would now have marrying privileges not available to hetros. Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love from New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy lover from the same state… or any of other states with the similar age of consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict *progressive* parents from giving such consent?
http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child’s" welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to give informed consent, then yes.
Age of consent is not by the child but, rather, by the parent(s). If the parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the parents give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how could the state intervene? ("Child" in quotes because we are talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is still considered a minor in some respects.) This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it’s none of your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
It affects my society. That makes it my business. Just as my opinion that 13 is too young to get married has no bearing on the legality of such a case.
legal opinions are everyone’s opinions. Thats why we are having this debate. <snip quote from N*MBLA This slope *is* slippery Yes, your (non-)arguments denying equal access to same-sex marriage are slippery slope, lubricated with your animus, no less.
looks to me you are the one here who is stressed by my questioning. When changes is social structure are being put forth, I think it’s healthy to explore possible ramifications. As far as the Church goes were marriages are sacramental, the church would simply deny recognition of those unions. Scott
Response:
I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert.
Spoken like a true theist bigot. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum.
You’re as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you.
Sure, you’re an atheist. <wink wink Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. can you define equal rights?
Yes. Is a business man’s rights being violated if he travels regularly and can’t have a different marriage partner in two or more states?
No. Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only one individual?
Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just asked. Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love from New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy lover from the same state… or any of other states with the similar age of consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict *progressive* parents from giving such consent? http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child’s" welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to give informed consent, then yes. ("Child" in quotes because we are talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is still considered a minor in some respects.) This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it’s none of your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever. Just as my opinion that 13 is too young to get married has no bearing on the legality of such a case. <snip quote from N*MBLA This slope *is* slippery
Yes, your (non-)arguments denying equal access to same-sex marriage are slippery slope, lubricated with your animus, no less.
Response:
I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy. You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert.
Excrement brain, you may not use "moral" in a sentence while you are a confessed A-Thos. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you.
Who cares what you are? You are obviously fishing to be fucked in the ass so much that you would not be able to walk for a month or is you comment made because you are drooling over a cock to suck. How’s your whore mother? Shan
Response:
I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy.
You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing, because you are a depraved pervert. I’m an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. How’s that? All atheists are not amoral trash like you. — Questo messaggio e’ stato inoltrato automaticamente da un paio di anonymous remailer. Il mittente originale e’ sconosciuto e non identificabile. Datevi pace.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy.
can you define equal rights? Is a business man’s rights being violated if he travels regularly and can’t have a different marriage partner in two or more states? Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only one individual? Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love from New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy lover from the same state… or any of other states with the similar age of consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict *progressive* parents from giving such consent? http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm "Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." – David Thorstad http://www.nambla.org/ This slope *is* slippery Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS? Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges
I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in public schools), then it’s all hooray-hooray. But when those same courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all pissy.
Response:
ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS – DUBYA SPEAKS – IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS?
Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying. Atheist need to be included in Bush’s Constitutional Amendment. And while he’s at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages. That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about. He’s married to an Asian-American :) – U.S. President George W. Bush said he’d – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “Some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage,” Bush said at the White House today. “A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change one of the most fundamental institutions of civilization.” Bush cited a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowing gay marriages and a decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to allow such marriages there. Bush doesn’t oppose civil unions between gays, spokesman Scott McClellan said. Kerry also opposes gay marriage and supports the concept of legal unions between homosexuals. Religious conservatives had been criticizing Bush for failing to stop same-sex marriages in San Francisco, the Washington Times reported last week. In his remarks, Bush cited an “overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.” Bush and his aides “consulted a number of constitutional scholars and religious leaders” before the president’s decision to support a ban on gay marriage, McClellan told reporters. “Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court cases, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty,” Bush said. “Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity,” he said. “On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Decisive and Democratic action is needed.” (As opposed to Repubican action that is.) * Unless I am wrong, all this tension is centered around the use of the word marriage instead of civil unions or secular partnerships. Queers and Atheists can’t get married. Or can Atheist get married? How can we allow Atheists to get married? These Atheists are undermining democracy because they have gotten married when they do not believe in God or his religions. Don’t tell Dubya about this because his brain will explode trying to figure it out? John WorldPeace WorldPeace is one Word!!! http://www.johnworldpeace.com How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of peace?
Response: