
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:52:23 GMT, Dennis Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. > >... hahahah Poor depraved faggot has got itself yet *another* new name to post under. Last name it used was "David Smith", before that it was "Dan W. Rather", before that it was "Dave Lamma", before that it was .... Poor depraved piece of shit faggot, its arguements keep getting refuted and shoved down its throat so many times that it has no other choice than to constantly change its name.... ---------- "Faggots put things into their mouths that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole." -- A.T. Tapman
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |