> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:39:40 -0800, > "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote: >> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote: >>> Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA") >>> <blackwater-evangel...@testland.org> wrote: >>>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.Layoff-Remedy.com> wrote: >>>>> Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA") >>>>> <blackwater-evangel...@testland.org> wrote: >>>>>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.Layoff-Remedy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.Layoff-Remedy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...bigoted garbage.
>>>>>>>>> <flush>
>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, >>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that >>>>>>>>> hateful exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just >>>>>>>>> as it did in "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial >>>>>>>>> marriage. Because if they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology >>>>>>>>> to the segregationists!
>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial >>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant?
>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th >>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally >>>>>>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go >>>>>>> together.
>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving >>>>>> vs Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is >>>>>> fundamental to the continuation of the species..'" is it that >>>>>> you don't understand? Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the >>>>>> scheme of mankind if it were to vanish in the next instant it >>>>>> would have no affect on the human race.
>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your >>>>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? ---
>>> <boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married >>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during >>> their marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying >>> rat's ass!
>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant > topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any busybodyish > loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it.
>>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, >>>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful >>>>>>>>>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in >>>>>>>>>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists! >>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial >>>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant? >>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th >>>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally >>>>>>>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go >>>>>>>> together. >>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving vs >>>>>>> Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is fundamental to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> continuation of the species..'" is it that you don't understand? >>>>>>> Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the scheme of mankind if it were >>>>>>> to vanish in the next instant it would have no affect on the human >>>>>>> race. >>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your >>>>>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? --- >>>> <boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
>>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married >>>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during their >>>> marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying rat's ass! >>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage. >> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant >> topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any busybodyish >> loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it. >>>> Furthermore, there are NO laws on the books any more about >>>> adultery because those laws WERE utterly asinine. >>> Irrelevant to homosexual marriage. >> See above. What I said is applicable to ALL marriages. >>>> So your WHINING about any so-called "infidelity" that might occur >>>> for same-sex marriage couples is ludicrous! It's NO big deal when >>>> something that TRIVIAL goes on during ANY marriages. AND -- it is >>>> NO one else's business. > Nonetheless, everything you have said is not a reason to change the > definition of marriage to include same-sex.
Since same-sex marriage is totally HARMLESS and there is NO good reason to **exclude** same-sex couples from marriage, everything I've said provides an EXCELLENT framework for ending the accordance of the right to marry as being a SPECIAL right that is made available, elitist-fashion, solely to heterosexual couples.
> There is no reason that civil unions couldn't provide all the rights > that homosexuals want.
Absolutely WRONG! As the blacks knew well, 70 years ago, separate-but-equal is hatefully DISCRIMINATORY. And, see THIS:
>>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, >>>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that >>>>>>>>>> hateful exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just >>>>>>>>>> as it did in "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial >>>>>>>>>> marriage. Because if they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology >>>>>>>>>> to the segregationists! >>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial >>>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant? >>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th >>>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally >>>>>>>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go >>>>>>>> together. >>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving >>>>>>> vs Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is >>>>>>> fundamental to the continuation of the species..'" is it that >>>>>>> you don't understand? Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the >>>>>>> scheme of mankind if it were to vanish in the next instant it >>>>>>> would have no affect on the human race. >>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your >>>>>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? --- >>>> <boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
>>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married >>>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during >>>> their marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying >>>> rat's ass! >>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage. >> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant >> topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any busybodyish >> loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it. > Strange, that's not what the LAW says.
WHAT laws? The U.S. Supreme Court very sensibly put an END to all hateful and nonsensical laws pertaining to how consenting adults have sex when, with its "Lawrence vs. Texas" decsion in 2003, it kicked the government OUT of U.S. bedrooms.
Those were the ONLY laws that COUNTED -- and they all are GONE.
>>>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, >>>>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that >>>>>>>>>>> hateful exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- >>>>>>>>>>> just as it did in "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for >>>>>>>>>>> interracial marriage. Because if they didn't, they'd owe a >>>>>>>>>>> HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>>>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial >>>>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant?
>>>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th >>>>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies >>>>>>>>> equally to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go >>>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the >>>>>>>> "Loving vs Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is >>>>>>>> fundamental to the continuation of the species..'" is it that >>>>>>>> you don't understand? Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the >>>>>>>> scheme of mankind if it were to vanish in the next instant it >>>>>>>> would have no affect on the human race.
>>>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your >>>>>>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? ---
>>>>> <boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
>>>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married >>>>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during >>>>> their marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying >>>>> rat's ass!
>>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
>>> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant >>> topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any >>> busybodyish loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it.
>> Strange, that's not what the LAW says.
> WHAT laws? The U.S. Supreme Court very sensibly put an END > to all hateful and nonsensical laws pertaining to how consenting > adults have sex when, with its "Lawrence vs. Texas" decsion in 2003, > it kicked the government OUT of U.S. bedrooms.
> Those were the ONLY laws that COUNTED -- and they all are GONE.
Sorry, that only governs the control of what sexual acts you may engage in with a consenting party.
Adultary is STILL a crime. You do know what adultary is, right? Something concerning infidelity?
For example in Michigan, adultery is a FELONY, and can be punishable by up to 4 years in jail.
Sorry, but in most places adultery is still a crime, though I have to admit it isn't commonly prosecuted. However uncommonly prosecuted doesn't mean it still isn't.
Ask Sergeant Chistopher K. Fairley who was convicted of adultery is it isn't a crime.
Maybe you can ask Lt. Cmdr. Syneeda Penland about her conviction of adultery?
Have you checked with Specialist Jacob J. Martinez about whether he could be convicted of adultery?
Maybe you can ask Raymond Bushey Jr.about whether adultery is illegal?
So, yes, infidelity is a crime in most states and people are still convicted of it.
> >>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, > >>>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful > >>>>>>>>>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in > >>>>>>>>>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because > >>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
> >>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial > >>>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant?
> >>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th > >>>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally > >>>>>>>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
> >>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go > >>>>>>>> together.
> >>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving vs > >>>>>>> Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is fundamental to > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> continuation of the species..'" is it that you don't understand? > >>>>>>> Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the scheme of mankind if it were > >>>>>>> to vanish in the next instant it would have no affect on the human > >>>>>>> race.
> >>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your > >>>>>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? ---
> >>>> <boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
> >>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married > >>>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during their > >>>> marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying rat's ass!
> >>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
> >> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant > >> topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any busybodyish > >> loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it.
> >>>> Furthermore, there are NO laws on the books any more about > >>>> adultery because those laws WERE utterly asinine.
> >>> Irrelevant to homosexual marriage.
> >> See above. What I said is applicable to ALL marriages.
> >>>> So your WHINING about any so-called "infidelity" that might occur > >>>> for same-sex marriage couples is ludicrous! It's NO big deal when > >>>> something that TRIVIAL goes on during ANY marriages. AND -- it is > >>>> NO one else's business.
> > Nonetheless, everything you have said is not a reason to change the > > definition of marriage to include same-sex.
> Since same-sex marriage is totally HARMLESS and there is > NO good reason to **exclude** same-sex couples from marriage,
Yes there is. I personally don't want gays contaminating the condition of marriage. That's reason enough and good enough. If a majority agrees with me, then that's the way it is.
You losers have lost every battle so far. One would think you'd figure out that people just don't like queers or what they represent.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, >>>>>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that hateful >>>>>>>>>>>> exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- just as it did in >>>>>>>>>>>> "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for interracial marriage. Because >>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't, they'd owe a HUGE apology to the segregationists! >>>>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial >>>>>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant? >>>>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th >>>>>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies equally >>>>>>>>>> to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go >>>>>>>>>> together. >>>>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the "Loving vs >>>>>>>>> Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is fundamental to >>>>>>>>> the continuation of the species..'" is it that you don't understand? >>>>>>>>> Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the scheme of mankind if it were >>>>>>>>> to vanish in the next instant it would have no affect on the human >>>>>>>>> race. >>>>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your >>>>>>>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? --- >>>>>><boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
>>>>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married >>>>>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during their >>>>>> marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying rat's ass! >>>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage. >>>> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant >>>> topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any busybodyish >>>> loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it. >>>>>> Furthermore, there are NO laws on the books any more about >>>>>> adultery because those laws WERE utterly asinine. >>>>> Irrelevant to homosexual marriage. >>>> See above. What I said is applicable to ALL marriages. >>>>>> So your WHINING about any so-called "infidelity" that might occur >>>>>> for same-sex marriage couples is ludicrous! It's NO big deal when >>>>>> something that TRIVIAL goes on during ANY marriages. AND -- it is >>>>>> NO one else's business. >>> Nonetheless, everything you have said is not a reason to change >>> the definition of marriage to include same-sex. >> Since same-sex marriage is totally HARMLESS and there is >> NO good reason to **exclude** same-sex couples from marriage, >> everything I've said provides an EXCELLENT framework for ending >> the accordance of the right to marry as being a SPECIAL right that >> is made available, elitist-fashion, solely to heterosexual couples. >>> There is no reason that civil unions couldn't provide all the rights >>> that homosexuals want. >> Absolutely WRONG! As the blacks knew well, 70 years ago, >> separate-but-equal is hatefully DISCRIMINATORY. And, see THIS:
> I personally don't want gays contaminating the condition of marriage.
ROTFL!!!!! That's the **same** STUPIDITY that the moronic and bigoted segregationists spewed when they were WHINING about interracial marriage -- just before THEIR equally-hateful and ignorant agenda went down the Drain of Extinction, never to be heard from again -- just as *yours* SOON will.
(Just the sort of ignorance we can expect from a CRAVEN COWARD who hides behind an anonymous remailer. And an expecially DUMB one at that -- since everyone knows who he is! ROTFL!! What a tool.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, >>>>>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that >>>>>>>>>>>> hateful exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- >>>>>>>>>>>> just as it did in "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for >>>>>>>>>>>> interracial marriage. Because if they didn't, they'd owe a >>>>>>>>>>>> HUGE apology to the segregationists! >>>>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial >>>>>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant? >>>>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th >>>>>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies >>>>>>>>>> equally to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go >>>>>>>>>> together. >>>>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the >>>>>>>>> "Loving vs Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage is >>>>>>>>> fundamental to the continuation of the species..'" is it that >>>>>>>>> you don't understand? Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the >>>>>>>>> scheme of mankind if it were to vanish in the next instant it >>>>>>>>> would have no affect on the human race. >>>>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of your >>>>>>>> comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? --- >>>>>> <boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
>>>>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married >>>>>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during >>>>>> their marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a flying >>>>>> rat's ass! >>>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage. >>>> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an irrelevant >>>> topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for any >>>> busybodyish loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it. >>> Strange, that's not what the LAW says. >> WHAT laws? The U.S. Supreme Court very sensibly put an END >> to all hateful and nonsensical laws pertaining to how consenting >> adults have sex when, with its "Lawrence vs. Texas" decsion in 2003, >> it kicked the government OUT of U.S. bedrooms.
>> Those were the ONLY laws that COUNTED -- and they all are GONE. > Sorry, that only governs the control of what sexual acts you may engage in > with a consenting party.
> Adultary is STILL a crime. You do know what adultary is, right? Something > concerning infidelity?
> For example in Michigan, adultery is a FELONY, and can be punishable by up > to 4 years in jail.
Bullcrap!! Such a law, IF on the books AND enforceable, would make the State of Michigan a National Laughingstock! Adultery is NO big deal in the 21st century, and no one in his right mind would think otherwise. (It is noteworthy that NO lemmings of the RRR Cult can be considered completely sane.)
> Sorry, but in most places adultery is still a crime, though I have to admit > it isn't commonly prosecuted. However uncommonly prosecuted doesn't mean > it still isn't.
I'd be AMAZED if there's been any such LUDICROUS attempt to prosecute such a triviality in this country in this century -- OUTSIDE of the screwed-up and often-draconian MILITARY "justice" system!
> Ask Sergeant Chistopher K. Fairley who was convicted of adultery is > it isn't a crime.
WHO? And if so, military "justice" often goes off the deep end.
> Maybe you can ask Lt. Cmdr. Syneeda Penland about her conviction > of adultery?
Railroaded in a Kangaroo Kourt because she'd been a whistle-blower regarding fraud. Her PARTNER in the "adultery" got a COMMENDATION!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anti-same-sex marriage bigotry will END in a NANOSECOND, >>>>>>>>>>>>> nationwide, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ends that >>>>>>>>>>>>> hateful exclusion of millions of people from marriage -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> just as it did in "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967 for >>>>>>>>>>>>> interracial marriage. Because if they didn't, they'd owe >>>>>>>>>>>>> a HUGE apology to the segregationists!
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the 1967 "Loving vs Virginia" ruling on interracial >>>>>>>>>>>> HETEROSEXUAL marriage is somehow relevant?
>>>>>>>>>>> Your inability to comprehend the clear wording of the 14th >>>>>>>>>>> Amendment and put 2 + 2 together to see that it applies >>>>>>>>>>> equally to both of these situations is not my problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprisng. That sort of ignorance and bigotry go >>>>>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>>>> What part of the statement that was included in the >>>>>>>>>> "Loving vs Virginia" ruling saying, in effect, "...marriage >>>>>>>>>> is fundamental to the continuation of the species..'" is it >>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand? Homosexuality contributes NOTHING >>>>>>>>>> to the scheme of mankind if it were to vanish in the next >>>>>>>>>> instant it would have no affect on the human race.
>>>>>>>>> What part of THIS is beyond the very LIMITED range of >>>>>>>>> your comprehension capabilities, bigoted loser? ---
>>>>>>> <boring and inane harangue about "infidelity" flushed>
>>>>>>> Hey! CLUELESS-wonder Taylor! MOST *HETEROsexual* married >>>>>>> couples have extramarital affairs at some point or points during >>>>>>> their marriage -- and NO one having a working brain GIVES a >>>>>>> flying rat's ass!
>>>>>> Irrlevant to homosexual marriage.
>>>>> I believe I made that quite clear. "Infidelity" is an >>>>> irrelevant topic in the 21st century -- PERIOD. It is inane for >>>>> any busybodyish loser to be the slightest bit concerned about it.
>>>> Strange, that's not what the LAW says.
>>> WHAT laws? The U.S. Supreme Court very sensibly put an END >>> to all hateful and nonsensical laws pertaining to how consenting >>> adults have sex when, with its "Lawrence vs. Texas" decsion in 2003, >>> it kicked the government OUT of U.S. bedrooms.
>>> Those were the ONLY laws that COUNTED -- and they all are GONE.
>> Sorry, that only governs the control of what sexual acts you may >> engage in with a consenting party.
>> Adultary is STILL a crime. You do know what adultary is, right? >> Something concerning infidelity?
>> For example in Michigan, adultery is a FELONY, and can be >> punishable by up to 4 years in jail.
> Bullcrap!!
I'm sorry, you get so upset with the simple presentation of factual information.
> Such a law, IF on the books AND enforceable, would > make the State of Michigan a National Laughingstock!
YOU may think so, but the law has a slightly different view.
I will simply note your backpedal from "irrelevent" to "no big deal".
It is a big deal to those convicted and serving time in jail for it.
> and no one in his right mind would > think otherwise.
And yet people are being convicted of it by juries of their peers. Seems other people do think it is a big deal.
> (It is noteworthy that NO lemmings of the RRR Cult > can be considered completely sane.)
>> Sorry, but in most places adultery is still a crime, though I >> have to admit it isn't commonly prosecuted. However uncommonly >> prosecuted doesn't mean >> it still isn't.
> I'd be AMAZED if there's been any such LUDICROUS attempt to > prosecute such a triviality in this country in this century -- OUTSIDE > of the screwed-up and often-draconian MILITARY "justice" system!
Well, your ignorance of reality is pretty amazing.
> BTW -- WHY are *you* so hung up on adultery? What's IN it > for YOU to be making such a big deal over such a TRIVIALITY?
Seems the military thinks adultery is a big deal, and I also notice how you managed to snip out and ignore the civilian case presented as well. Seems when the facts don't conform to what you want you either try to claim they don't apply or ignore them outright.
Sorry, but infedality is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of it even in the 21st Century.
You can either accept the facts, or demonstrate your inability to deal with reality. Your choice.
> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, is still a > crime in most places, and people are still convicted of it even in > the 21st Century.
(1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
(2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
(3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 a.m. would be.
In the 21st century, any law against abortion should be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
••• Rest in Peace ••• ••• George Richard Tiller, MD ••• ••• A True American HERO! ••• ••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 ••• ••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:08:31 -0500, > "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, >> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of >> it even in >> the 21st Century.
> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it > is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the convictions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or > otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as > STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 > a.m. would be.
Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert that infidelity is "irrelevant".
> In the 21st century, any law against abortion should > be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission that infidelity is relevent and adultery can be a big deal despite your denials.
>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, >>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of >>> it even in the 21st Century. >> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal. > Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go > abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. The law > certainly sees it as a big deal.
The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And as i pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, almost NO one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It would be a great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms.
>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS. > Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the con- > victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
See above.
>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >> a.m. would be. > Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert > that infidelity is "irrelevant".
It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution.
>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism. > Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission > that infidelity is relevent...
I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red when one boils it? Etc., etc.)
>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, >>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of >>>> it even in the 21st Century.
>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go >> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. >> The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT.
And for the times it is not.....it is.
Thanks for your admission that infidelity is not "irrelevent" and adultery isn't a big deal, at times.
<snip>
Oh, FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and connected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent.
>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, >>>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of >>>>> it even in the 21st Century. >>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal. >>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go >>> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. >>> The law certainly sees it as a big deal. >> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And as >> I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, almost NO one >> is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It would be a great way for >> a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms. >>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS. >>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the con- >>> victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts. >> See above. >>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>> a.m. would be. >>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert >>> that infidelity is "irrelevant". >> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world would >> anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution. >>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism. >>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>> that infidelity is relevent... >> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I can't >> even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking TROLL status, >> are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? There are TRILLIONS >> of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why does a lobster's shell >> turn from green (or blue) to red when one boils it? Etc., etc.)
[ ... ]
> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply that your > assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and connected to that your > initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent.
It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions by now!
>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, >>>>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted >>>>>> of it even in the 21st Century.
>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go >>>> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. >>>> The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And >>> as >>> I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, almost NO >>> one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It would be a >>> great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms.
>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the con- >>>> victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
>>> See above.
>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>> a.m. would be.
>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert >>>> that infidelity is "irrelevant".
>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world >>> would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution.
>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>> that infidelity is relevent...
>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I >>> can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking >>> TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? >>> There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why >>> does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red when one >>> boils it? Etc., etc.)
> [ ... ]
>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply >> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and connected >> to that your initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent.
> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their adultery would probably disagree that it's never a big deal.
>>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, >>>>>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted >>>>>>> of it even in the 21st Century. >>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal. >>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go >>>>> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. >>>>> The law certainly sees it as a big deal. >>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And >>>> as I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, almost NO >>>> one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It would be a >>>> great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms. >>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS. >>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the con- >>>>> victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts. >>>> See above. >>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>>> a.m. would be. >>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert >>>>> that infidelity is "irrelevant". >>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world >>>> would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution. >>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism. >>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>>> that infidelity is relevent... >>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I >>>> can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking >>>> TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? >>>> There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why >>>> does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red when one >>>> boils it? Etc., etc.)
[ ... ]
>>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply >>> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and con- >>> nected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent. >> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY. > Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their adultery > would probably disagree that it's never a big deal.
As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with it's being a relevant point) deleted) ---
>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by >> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it >> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions >> by now!
>>>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big >>>>>>>> deal, is still a crime in most places, and people are still >>>>>>>> convicted of it even in the 21st Century.
>>>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>>>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we >>>>>> go abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big >>>>>> deal. The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
>>>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And >>>>> as I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, >>>>> almost NO one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It >>>>> would be a >>>>> great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms.
>>>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
>>>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the >>>>>> con- victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>>>> a.m. would be.
>>>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly >>>>>> assert that infidelity is "irrelevant".
>>>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world >>>>> would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution.
>>>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>>>> that infidelity is relevent...
>>>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I >>>>> can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking >>>>> TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? >>>>> There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why >>>>> does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red when one >>>>> boils it? Etc., etc.)
> [ ... ]
>>>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply >>>> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and con- >>>> nected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is >>>> irrevelent.
>>> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
>> Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their >> adultery would probably disagree that it's never a big deal.
> As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with > it's being a relevant point) deleted) ---
>>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by >>> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it >>> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions >>> by now!
I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this offense in THIS century, and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and adultery isn't a big deal are both bullshit. Now you may feel they should be, but until the laws are repealed......your feelings on the matter don't mean shit. Infidelity can be relevent, and adultery can be a very big deal.
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big >>>>>>>>> deal, is still a crime in most places, and people are still >>>>>>>>> convicted of it even in the 21st Century. >>>>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal. >>>>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we >>>>>>> go abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big >>>>>>> deal. The law certainly sees it as a big deal. >>>>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And >>>>>> as I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, >>>>>> almost NO one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It >>>>>> would be a >>>>>> great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>>>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>>>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms. >>>>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS. >>>>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the >>>>>>> con- victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts. >>>>>> See above. >>>>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>>>>> a.m. would be. >>>>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly >>>>>>> assert that infidelity is "irrelevant". >>>>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world >>>>>> would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution. >>>>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism. >>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>>>>> that infidelity is relevent... >>>>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I >>>>>> can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking >>>>>> TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? >>>>>> There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why >>>>>> does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red when one >>>>>> boils it? Etc., etc.)
>>>>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply >>>>> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and con- >>>>> nected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is >>>>> irrevelent. >>>> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY. >>> Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their >>> adultery would probably disagree that it's never a big deal. >> As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with >> it's being a relevant point) deleted) --- >>>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by >>>> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it >>>> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>>>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>>>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions >>>> by now! > I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this > offense in THIS century...
NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and > adultery isn't a big deal...
...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
<remaining REDUNDANT whines flushed>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
••• Rest in Peace ••• ••• George Richard Tiller, MD ••• ••• A True American HERO! ••• ••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 ••• ••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big >>>>>>>>>> deal, is still a crime in most places, and people are still >>>>>>>>>> convicted of it even in the 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>>>>>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if >>>>>>>> we go abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>>>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big >>>>>>>> deal. The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
>>>>>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. >>>>>>> And as I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, >>>>>>> almost NO one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It >>>>>>> would be a >>>>>>> great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>>>>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>>>>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms.
>>>>>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>>>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
>>>>>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the >>>>>>>> con- victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>>>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>>>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>>>>>> a.m. would be.
>>>>>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly >>>>>>>> assert that infidelity is "irrelevant".
>>>>>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world >>>>>>> would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution.
>>>>>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>>>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
>>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>>>>>> that infidelity is relevent...
>>>>>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I >>>>>>> can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking >>>>>>> TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? >>>>>>> There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., >>>>>>> why does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red >>>>>>> when one boils it? Etc., etc.)
> [ ... ]
>>>>>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply >>>>>> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and con- >>>>>> nected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is >>>>>> irrevelent.
>>>>> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
>>>> Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their >>>> adultery would probably disagree that it's never a big deal.
>>> As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with >>> it's being a relevant point) deleted) ---
>>>>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by >>>>> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it >>>>> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>>>>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>>>>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions >>>>> by now!
>> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this >> offense in THIS century...
> NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there > actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue > so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
I accept your admission that prosecution does occur, thus infideality is NOT irrelevent and adultery can be a big deal.....even in the 21st century.
"Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote: > I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this > offense in THIS century...
NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and > adultery isn't a big deal...
...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
••• Rest in Peace ••• ••• George Richard Tiller, MD ••• ••• A True American HERO! ••• ••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 ••• ••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:48:39 -0500, > "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this >> offense in THIS century...
> NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there > actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue > so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
>> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and >> adultery isn't a big deal...
> ...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
Right, going to jail, felony convictions or even a death sentence are no big deal....
Interesting standard you have there. So tell me what do you consider to be a big deal?
On 2009-11-06 20:55:58 -0500, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
> WHAT laws? The U.S. Supreme Court very sensibly put an END > to all hateful and nonsensical laws pertaining to how consenting > adults have sex when, with its "Lawrence vs. Texas" decsion in 2003, > it kicked the government OUT of U.S. bedrooms.
> Those were the ONLY laws that COUNTED -- and they all are GONE.
You are one FUCKED UP cowboy, Crazy Craig Chilton. Do you really approve of your wife fucking your neighbor and your daughter giving blow jobs to lonely soldiers at the Des Moines USO?
>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big deal, >>>>>> is still a crime in most places, and people are still convicted of >>>>>> it even in the 21st Century.
>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we go >>>> abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big deal. >>>> The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And as >>> I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, almost NO one >>> is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It would be a great way for >>> a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms.
>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the con- >>>> victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
>>> See above.
>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>> a.m. would be.
>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly assert >>>> that infidelity is "irrelevant".
>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world would >>> anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution.
>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>> that infidelity is relevent...
>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I can't >>> even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking TROLL status, >>> are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? There are TRILLIONS >>> of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why does a lobster's shell >>> turn from green (or blue) to red when one boils it? Etc., etc.)
> [ ... ]
>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply that your >> assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and connected to that your >> initial assertion that infidelity is irrevelent.
> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
Really? Thousands of layers who handle divorce cases would be surprised to hear that, you ignorant fuck-wit!
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big >>>>>>>>>> deal, is still a crime in most places, and people are still >>>>>>>>>> convicted of it even in the 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal.
>>>>>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we >>>>>>>> go abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>>>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big >>>>>>>> deal. The law certainly sees it as a big deal.
>>>>>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And >>>>>>> as I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, >>>>>>> almost NO one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It >>>>>>> would be a >>>>>>> great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>>>>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>>>>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms.
>>>>>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>>>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS.
>>>>>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the >>>>>>>> con- victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts.
>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>>>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>>>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>>>>>> a.m. would be.
>>>>>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly >>>>>>>> assert that infidelity is "irrelevant".
>>>>>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world >>>>>>> would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution.
>>>>>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>>>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism.
>>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>>>>>> that infidelity is relevent...
>>>>>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I >>>>>>> can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking >>>>>>> TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? >>>>>>> There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why >>>>>>> does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red when one >>>>>>> boils it? Etc., etc.)
> [ ... ]
>>>>>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply >>>>>> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and con- >>>>>> nected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is >>>>>> irrevelent.
>>>>> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY.
>>>> Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their >>>> adultery would probably disagree that it's never a big deal.
>>>>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by >>>>> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it >>>>> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>>>>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>>>>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions >>>>> by now!
>> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this >> offense in THIS century...
> NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there > actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue > so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
>> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and >> adultery isn't a big deal...
> ...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
> <remaining REDUNDANT whines flushed>
Don't you think that your deletion of relevant information is cowardly, Crazy Craig Chilton, or is only cowardly when others do it. hmmmmmm? I direct your attention to this excerpt from one of your recent snake oil SPAMMING posts:
On 2009-11-08 03:48:00 -0500, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:48:39 -0500, > "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this >> offense in THIS century...
> NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there > actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue > so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
>> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and >> adultery isn't a big deal...
Whooops! The above has another of your deletion of relevant material (and you added those clever little three dots too). You do still consider that "COWARDLY don't you? And when, oh when will you stop SPAMMING usenet with intent to con people out of their hard earned wages with you snake oil ads for your childish and totally irrelevant pamphlet "LEARN HOW TO GET PAID TO TRAVEL"?
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but infidelity is not irrelevent, is still a big >>>>>>>>> deal, is still a crime in most places, and people are still >>>>>>>>> convicted of it even in the 21st Century. >>>>>>>> (1) Adultery is literally ***NO*** big deal. >>>>>>> Sure, other than it may be a FELONY where you live, or if we >>>>>>> go abroad can carry a DEATH sentence.
>>>>>>> So clearly for those convicted it certainly can be a big >>>>>>> deal. The law certainly sees it as a big deal. >>>>>> The operative word you used is "can." It USUALLY is NOT. And >>>>>> as I pointed out before, outside of the military in the USA, >>>>>> almost NO one is STUPID enough to attempt to enforce it. (It >>>>>> would be a >>>>>> great way for a prosecutor to make a laughingstock of himself!)
>>>>>> And... it is ONLY in the USA that we've been discussing.
>>>>>> Any such laws still extant are LUDICROUS. Anachronisms. >>>>>>>> (2) Enforcement of ANY still-existing law against it >>>>>>>> is/would be hateful and LUDICROUS. >>>>>>> Nice assertion, but doesn't alter the fact the laws and the >>>>>>> con- victions exist. Denial isn't going to alter the facts. >>>>>> See above. >>>>>>>> (3) ALL stiil-remaining laws against it (military or >>>>>>>> otherwise) should be REPEALED. They are as >>>>>>>> STUPID as a law against walking a dog at 9:13 >>>>>>>> a.m. would be. >>>>>>> Maybe, but until and unless they are then you can hardly >>>>>>> assert that infidelity is "irrelevant". >>>>>> It IS irrelevant. Almost NOwhere in the U.S. civilian world >>>>>> would anyone be STUPID enough to pursue such a prosecution. >>>>>>>> In the 21st century, any law against sdultery should >>>>>>>> be regarded as a ludicrous anachronism. >>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I will simply acknowledge your admission >>>>>>> that infidelity is relevent... >>>>>> I made NO such "admission." Adultery is NO big deal! (And I >>>>>> can't even believe that YOU are pursuing this in here! Seeking >>>>>> TROLL status, are you? You have NO life, do you? Is THAT it? >>>>>> There are TRILLIONS of MORE sensible topics to discuss. E.g., why >>>>>> does a lobster's shell turn from green (or blue) to red when one >>>>>> boils it? Etc., etc.)
>>>>> FYI, I never said that adultery was always a big deal, simply >>>>> that your assertion it never was a big deal was wrong, and con- >>>>> nected to that your initial assertion that infidelity is >>>>> irrevelent. >>>> It is NEVER a big deal in REALITY. >>> Sorry, but those people in jail, or executed because of their >>> adultery would probably disagree that it's never a big deal. >> As I said BEFORE (and which you in cowardly fashion (what with >> it's being a relevant point) deleted) --- >>>> Using it as an excuse to speciously PERSECUTE people by >>>> wielding archaic and outmoded laws against them makes it >>>> an ARTIIFICIALLY-wielded and hateful club in RARE cases.
>>>> For which there can be NO excuse, in THIS century.
>>>> We should have TOTALLY outgrown such spurious actions >>>> by now! > I accept your admission that people ARE prosecuted for this > offense in THIS century...
NOT an "admission." I never rule out the possibility that there actually are a FEW people who might be STUPID enough to pursue so IDIOTIC a persecution over something that HARMLESS.
> ...and as such your assertions that infidelity is irrelevent and > adultery isn't a big deal...
...are CORRECT!! Absolutely *NO* big deal!! TRIVIAL!!
<remaining REDUNDANT whines flushed>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
••• Rest in Peace ••• ••• George Richard Tiller, MD ••• ••• A True American HERO! ••• ••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 ••• ••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
|
