
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
I don't see anything wrong with that.... "Dennis Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF "IS" > > "Is" a intersexual a human? That is the question that has to be > asked when one talks about the Marriage Ban Amendment. If > intersexuals are humans, then the Marriage Ban Amendment will > null their humanhood, because in order to deny a human their right > to marry at all under the fundamental right in the 9th Amendment, > they must be made an nonhuman. They cannot be a human and not > be able to marry at all. If the only marriage is one between > an exclusive man to an exclusive woman then intersexuals > cannot pass this very narrow definition. This Marriage Ban > Amendment will for all time to come say to intersexual children > you are inferior to all other human beings, you are not a > human in the USA. Yet it is Old King George's decree that > intersexuals are not humans, that the only marriage in his > Oil Kingdom shall be only between a man and a woman, you freaks > need not apply. > > Yes, that "All Inclusive Party" is sure looking a lot like a > "All Are Welcomed" sign at a KKK rally. > > ... >
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |