Text 15688, 166 rader
Skriven 2005-09-27 12:54:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ALAN HESS
Ärende: Bob Barr
================
On 09-26-05, ALAN HESS said to TIM RICHARDSON:


TR> Recently, you posted some sort of article in support of same sex
TR> marriage, and were deploring Arnold Swartzenegger not signing some
TR> sort of `homosexual marriage' bill into law.


AH>I don't recall posting an article deploring Arnold, but I may have.


TR> So, let me ask you a couple of questions:


TR> When was the last time a Rabbi in Israel presided at a wedding
TR> between a same-sex couple?


AH>An Orthodox rabbi?  Never.  A Conservative or Reform rabbi?  The same
AH>answer, probably, over there.  Over here in America, where I live,
AH>different answer for Reform, not sure for Conservative.


Well, my point is; if `they' won't accept having *their* beliefs re-defined as
accepting the *un-acceptable*, why does everyone demand that *others* do so?



TR> What if a couple of `simpering' male homosexuals wanted to be


AH>"Simpering" was necessary in the above question for what reason?  You'd
AH>feel differently if the male homosexuals involved were two bodybuilders?


I said "simpering". Two individuals who are so obviously `homosexual' that
just hearing them talk to each other in that lilting, *simpering* mannerism
turns an ordinary persons' stomach.


I wasn't *intending* to be `politically correct', nor did I want my words to
be misconstrued in any way as being `tolerant' of the intolerable. There is no
`hate' involved. But I make no pretense of my `disgust'.


TR> married to each other by a Jewish Rabbi in the main synagogue in
TR> Tel Aviv?


AH>They wouldn't be allowed.  So?  A Jew wouldn't be allowed to marry a
AH>Christian in that synagogue, either.


We aren't talking about "a Jew marrying a Christian", here. You know full well
what we're talking about, here. We are talking about two people of the same
sex being officially *married*, and being thought of as `a married couple'.


By the way.....aside from what everybody thinks (and seems to be focused
on)...it isn't *about* marriage per se. Its really all about defining a brand
new, as-yet non-existent category of individual who now becomes `qualified'
for benefits of all kinds, which are traditionally only allowed for *a man and
wife*.


TR> Oh, and you were deploring something about the U.S. flag being
TR> protected by Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.


TR> Let me ask you this:


TR> If its ok to burn, or piss on, or take a crap on, the United
TR> States flag, is it also ok to do the same thing to the flag of Israel?


AH>In this country, absolutely.  Our First Amendment protects the right to
AH>protest in that manner, with our flag, Israel's flag, or any nation's
AH>flag.


If the "First Ammendment" protects the right of someone to burn a US or
Israeli flag, why does it not cover my using the word "simpering"? Am I a
second class American or something?



TR> What if, for instance, someone were to take the flag of Israel
TR> with the Star of David on it to an intersection in Tel Aviv, or


AH>That depends on how the Israeli government deals with burning their flag.


Some Jew would probably step out of the crowd and mow the raghead bastard down
with their Uzi, and you know it!


AH>We have our own Constitution, thank you.


Yeah, well the Constitution is written with *words*. And *words* mean things.


TR> say....*your* hometown, on *your* block, right in front of *your*
TR> house, throw it on the ground and proceed to take a piss on it? Or
TR> dropped their pants and wiped their ass with it? Or poured lighter
TR> fluid on it and set it afire? Or all three?


AH>On my property, they're trespassing.  They're also breaking fire
AH>ordinances if they burn a flag (American or other) or anything else
AH>without a permit.  Public urination and defecation are also against the
AH>law.  See?


AH>No need to desecrate the Constitution with an anti-free speech
AH>Amendment (not that there would ever be an anti-Israeli flag burning
AH>Amendment to our Constitution, so I don't see why you're focused on that
AH>flag.)


You need to read the Constitution a little. Here, let me help you a little:


The Constitution states that :


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


You see right up there where it says (and I'm quoting) "....; or the right of
the people to peaceably assemble,.....".


You see that? Nowhere in there does it say *anything* about anybody having the
right to set an American flag on fire. At the point where the fire is started
with the flag, there is no longer "peaceably to assemble". Now violence has
been thrown into the game, and the reaction to it is almost (or should be) a
foregone conclusion.


TR> Would that all be `jake' with you?


AH>Would I like it?  No.  Like it even less if it was an American flag.


AH>Doesn't change the fact that Americans have the right to protest by
AH>burning a flag, with a proper permit.


I've never heard of `arson', or inciting to riot being allowed "with a proper
permit".





---
*Durango b301 #PE* Fas est et ab hoste doceri - It's proper to learn even from
an
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)