| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 10:14:31 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_GqUe.20465$4i6.10445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
I'm kind of sorry I answered your questions now. I didn't realize you
were
this much of a jerk.
OK, genius, what do YOU think?
My word - didn't take long for your true colors to show.
Are babies a commodity, or are they human
beings with needs, an identity, a presest, present, and future?
Depends on who you ask. Some anti-adoption people think people view
available babies just as a commodity. You have to understand that there are
many adoptees out there that are TOTALLY satisfied with their situation
(i.e., not knowing bio family info), My adoptive brother is a case in
point.
How do you think the system should work?
What system?
Marriage or not?
That's up to the people involved.
Why do we have
marriage?
Beats the ***** out of me. It's a legal contract as far as I'm concerned.
Bottom line is, marriage isn't JUST to have kids.
BTW, are you anti-adoption? Just curious.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 07:18:01 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
Depends on who you ask. Some anti-adoption people think people view
available babies just as a commodity. You have to understand that there are
many adoptees out there that are TOTALLY satisfied with their situation
(i.e., not knowing bio family info), My adoptive brother is a case in
point.
Adoption is not the core of this discussion. A system that plans on
procreating illegitimate children is.
BTW, are you anti-adoption? Just curious.
No one is anti-adoption. Not the point. I don't even object to gays and
single men and women adopting. I just don't agree with all of the
artificial means of creating babies. It produces children (human beings)
who have no identity, no ego, no idea of their lineage or parentage. We
all know that this happens accidentally in the course of human history.
But we should not PLAN on a system that requires artificial means in
order to have children.
Every human being who has ever lived has a mother and a father. We are
not animals. Purposely spewing out babies with no idea of their
parentage is sub-human.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:58:35 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZIKUe.49949$p_1.45962@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Depends on who you ask. Some anti-adoption people think people view
available babies just as a commodity. You have to understand that there
are many adoptees out there that are TOTALLY satisfied with their
situation (i.e., not knowing bio family info), My adoptive brother is a
case in point.
Adoption is not the core of this discussion. A system that plans on
procreating illegitimate children is.
Hey, I was illegitmate and I turned out just fine. I know a couple of
single moms and their little bastards are doing just fine as well. What
business is if of yours?
BTW, are you anti-adoption? Just curious.
No one is anti-adoption.
Oh *****. I know lots of people that are anti-adoption. There are quite
a few out there, and I'm guessing you're probably one of them, who feels
that a baby should stay with their natural mother even if the birthmother is
unable or unwilling to parents.
Not the point. I don't even object to gays and
single men and women adopting. I just don't agree with all of the
artificial means of creating babies.
Why? What's it to you? Why should this be considered any of your business?
I fail to see why it bothers you so much.
It produces children (human beings)
who have no identity, no ego, no idea of their lineage or parentage.
Parentage? You don't considered their parents, natural or not, to actually
be their parents?
We
all know that this happens accidentally in the course of human history.
But we should not PLAN on a system that requires artificial means in order
to have children.
Why not?
Every human being who has ever lived has a mother and a father. We are not
animals. Purposely spewing out babies with no idea of their parentage is
sub-human.
What exactly are you talking about? Artifical insemination? Using donor
eggs or sperm? Why in the world would this bother you and have anything to
do with you whatsoever?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 03:34:40 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
What exactly are you talking about? Artifical insemination? Using donor
eggs or sperm? Why in the world would this bother you and have anything to
do with you whatsoever?
What kind of stupid question is this? To do with me? This is a
discussion of ethics. Do I have to be killed to object to murder?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 07:30:20 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ax0Ve.26139$4i6.5074@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
What exactly are you talking about? Artifical insemination? Using donor
eggs or sperm? Why in the world would this bother you and have anything
to do with you whatsoever?
What kind of stupid question is this? To do with me?
Say what? You're the one bitching about children being produced by
"artificial means" and all of a sudden you have no idea what I'm talking
about?
This is a
discussion of ethics. Do I have to be killed to object to murder?
WTF? What isn't ethical about artificial insemination?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 07:41:57 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3ok0gqF69u0lU1@individual.net...
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Of course not, silly, they use nukes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:02:38 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
What exactly are you talking about? Artifical insemination? Using donor
eggs or sperm? Why in the world would this bother you and have anything to
do with you whatsoever?
What kind of stupid question is this? To do with me? This is a
discussion of ethics. Do I have to be killed to object to murder?
Gary Eickmeier
What, exactly, is unethical about children being raised by adults who
are not their biological parents? After all, children get adopted each
and every day, and you don't consider all adoption to be unethical, do
you?
It seems to me that what matters is that children be raised in homes
where they get the love, support, structure, and care they need, along
with food, water, shelter, medical care, education, etc.
What difference does it make if the children aren't the biological
offspring of the adults doing the raising? Will they be loved or cared
for any less?
You've clearly supported the statement "Gary Eickmeier" doesn't like
children being raised by adults who do not consist of the child's
biological mother and father."
You have yet to support the statement "It is unhealthy / undesirable
for children to be raised by adults who do not consist of the child's
biological mother and father." in what I would consider to be a
well-reasoned manner.
Where is your supporting evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:48:17 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
What, exactly, is unethical about children being raised by adults who
are not their biological parents? After all, children get adopted each
and every day, and you don't consider all adoption to be unethical, do
you?
It seems to me that what matters is that children be raised in homes
where they get the love, support, structure, and care they need, along
with food, water, shelter, medical care, education, etc.
What difference does it make if the children aren't the biological
offspring of the adults doing the raising? Will they be loved or cared
for any less?
You've clearly supported the statement "Gary Eickmeier" doesn't like
children being raised by adults who do not consist of the child's
biological mother and father."
I think maybe this discussion is beyond your understanding. I have not
objected to adoption. I object to people planning to spew out
illegitimate children.
You have yet to support the statement "It is unhealthy / undesirable
for children to be raised by adults who do not consist of the child's
biological mother and father." in what I would consider to be a
well-reasoned manner.
Where is your supporting evidence?
Where is your brain?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 04:18:03 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5U6Ve.28967$4i6.12299@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
What, exactly, is unethical about children being raised by adults who
are not their biological parents? After all, children get adopted each
and every day, and you don't consider all adoption to be unethical, do
you?
It seems to me that what matters is that children be raised in homes
where they get the love, support, structure, and care they need, along
with food, water, shelter, medical care, education, etc.
What difference does it make if the children aren't the biological
offspring of the adults doing the raising? Will they be loved or cared
for any less?
You've clearly supported the statement "Gary Eickmeier" doesn't like
children being raised by adults who do not consist of the child's
biological mother and father."
I think maybe this discussion is beyond your understanding. I have not
objected to adoption. I object to people planning to spew out illegitimate
children.
Even if they raise those children in a loving home?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:06:29 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
What, exactly, is unethical about children being raised by adults who
are not their biological parents? After all, children get adopted each
and every day, and you don't consider all adoption to be unethical, do
you?
It seems to me that what matters is that children be raised in homes
where they get the love, support, structure, and care they need, along
with food, water, shelter, medical care, education, etc.
What difference does it make if the children aren't the biological
offspring of the adults doing the raising? Will they be loved or cared
for any less?
You've clearly supported the statement "Gary Eickmeier" doesn't like
children being raised by adults who do not consist of the child's
biological mother and father."
I think maybe this discussion is beyond your understanding. I have not
objected to adoption. I object to people planning to spew out
illegitimate children.
You've made it abundantly clear that you don't approve of children
being raised by adults other than their biological parents. The
objection you've raised to same-sex marriage is that this would act as
a catalyst for more children being raised by adults other than their
biological parents. The primary means by which same-sex couples would
accomplish this is via adoption. The relationship seems very clear to
me.
You don't like the idea of homosexuals adopting, or using surrogate
mothers, because this will contribute to the production of
"illegitimate" children. You don't like the idea of lesbians
reproducing via artificial insemination for the same reason.
Aside from the case of lesbian couples reproducing via artificial
insemination, we are clearly talking about abortion. That's the
connection.
Now, if you're just objecting because the "illegitimate" children
exist, rather than complaining about how they'll be raised, perhaps you
should be arguing that all adoptions be made illegal, so as to remove
any incentive for people "planning to spew out illegitimate children."
You have yet to support the statement "It is unhealthy / undesirable
for children to be raised by adults who do not consist of the child's
biological mother and father." in what I would consider to be a
well-reasoned manner.
Where is your supporting evidence?
Where is your brain?
Again, insults don't substitute for well-reasoned arguments supported
by evidence.
Do you have well-reasoned arguments or evidence to offer?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:08:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:18:01 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
Depends on who you ask. Some anti-adoption people think people view
available babies just as a commodity. You have to understand that there are
many adoptees out there that are TOTALLY satisfied with their situation
(i.e., not knowing bio family info), My adoptive brother is a case in
point.
Adoption is not the core of this discussion. A system that plans on
procreating illegitimate children is.
How can a system plan on procreating illegitimate children when it is
the system that determines their legitimacy in the first place?
BTW, are you anti-adoption? Just curious.
No one is anti-adoption. Not the point. I don't even object to gays and
single men and women adopting. I just don't agree with all of the
artificial means of creating babies. It produces children (human beings)
who have no identity, no ego, no idea of their lineage or parentage. We
all know that this happens accidentally in the course of human history.
But we should not PLAN on a system that requires artificial means in
order to have children.
Every human being who has ever lived has a mother and a father. We are
not animals. Purposely spewing out babies with no idea of their
parentage is sub-human.
Gary Eickmeier
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 04:12:33 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:18:01 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Adoption is not the core of this discussion. A system that plans on
procreating illegitimate children is.
What exactly *is* an illegitimate child?
Doesn't that depend on the definition of marriage?
BTW, are you anti-adoption? Just curious.
No one is anti-adoption. Not the point. I don't even object to gays and
single men and women adopting.
I read someting very different in your postings.
I just don't agree with all of the artificial means of creating babies. It produces children (human beings)
who have no identity, no ego, no idea of their lineage or parentage. We
all know that this happens accidentally in the course of human history.
But we should not PLAN on a system that requires artificial means in
order to have children.
In your -humble- opinion, of course.
Every human being who has ever lived has a mother and a father. We are
not animals.
We are.
Purposely spewing out babies with no idea of their
parentage is sub-human.
In your -humble- opinion, of course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 02:19:01 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
I'm kind of sorry I answered your questions now. I didn't realize you
were
this much of a jerk.
OK, genius, what do YOU think? Are babies a commodity, or are they human
beings with needs, an identity, a past, present, and future?
Babies are human beings with needs, an identity, a past, a present and
future.
How do you think the system should work?
The parents of the child must provide for the child until it is 18 years
of age.
Marriage or not?
Marriage or not.
Why do we have
marriage?
Legally, for the benefits said union provides, such as visitation
rights, jointly filing taxes, and so forth.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 04:57:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:30:34 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
I'm kind of sorry I answered your questions now. I didn't realize you were
this much of a jerk.
OK, genius, what do YOU think? Are babies a commodity, or are they human
beings with needs, an identity, a past, present, and future?
How do you think the system should work? Marriage or not? Why do we have
marriage?
Gary, mind if I ask what all this has to do with the gay marriage
issue? You should discuss this in a divorce group. Not here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 01:42:14 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com>
Michael Altarriba wrote:
For Michael, James, and Gregory -
I guess you guys are right. I just wasn't being liberal enough in my
thinking. I was looking at marriage as a social institution for the
benefit of the children and completely forgetting about the needs of the
adults. We have been so tied to this artificial concept of "family" that
we have failed to see other possibilities in a more free-thinking society.
Of course it doesn't matter if you know who you are, or who your parents
are, as long as you've got a nice house and some things. Why even have
marriage at all? That would eliminate the whole problem. We could just
"have babies" and even pass them around if someone is less fortunate and
hasn't got one. All we would have to do is make sure that someone was
watching them at all times. Doesn't have to be two parents though, of
either sex! Why should two individuals be allowed to hog the children
for so long? Why couldn't we have polygamy, or even NO-gamy! Without
being tied to a concept of marriage, we could live in communes of any
number of people, and share many babies. The stories around the campfire
would rock! Babysitters? Forgetaboutit.
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 04:40:05 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dfsl26$d0d$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com>
Michael Altarriba wrote:
For Michael, James, and Gregory -
I guess you guys are right. I just wasn't being liberal
enough in my thinking. I was looking at marriage as a
social institution for the benefit of the children and
completely forgetting about the needs of the adults. We
have been so tied to this artificial concept of "family"
that we have failed to see other possibilities in a more
free-thinking society.
Of course it doesn't matter if you know who you are, or
who your parents are, as long as you've got a nice house
and some things. Why even have marriage at all? That would
eliminate the whole problem. We could just "have babies"
and even pass them around if someone is less fortunate and
hasn't got one. All we would have to do is make sure that
someone was watching them at all times. Doesn't have to be
two parents though, of either sex! Why should two
individuals be allowed to hog the children for so long?
Why couldn't we have polygamy, or even NO-gamy! Without
being tied to a concept of marriage, we could live in
communes of any number of people, and share many babies.
The stories around the campfire would rock! Babysitters?
Forgetaboutit.
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others --
have been the practice in some culture or other, what you
suggest is quite reasonable.
And all of them would doubtlessly have protested that
their very strong gut feelings on family and marriage and
child-raising, feelings all working to support their
particular social organization, arose from "human nature"
because they were self-evidently "natural" and "right".
BTW, Cary, I've been meaning to respond to your New Scientist
article, just haven't had much time. I will try to get to it,
however.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has
become the norm only recently in our own culture for that
matter. People in the past did generally not have the
opportunity to sequester themselves away from the rest of
their respective families.
Very true. Camille Paglia calls the Western nuclear family
"incestuous".
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQyTFAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHynAf/UZ898ug96/+MrGYzOnJvpiE4V5RN32Sg
yaRGX2slQWuPtOmKBynyEKTmrEksnk1RcWt9WSO4UWgCFr4GLFS9Bh3RSwdTe+j0
fypSVx97JPGTw56MnmVjdoNrlh8u6w28gHE1qsZxG5iUw5wNnt6k3PakitRJcCNr
poKcy9w9zUf7uYTkl1E13qKioWspEigAM7A00TNVKyd449oFiiKitwUvc9ARpcGP
46BXRpGZ/+fov5oROwsviDY3x13Djwgx/KvhZA2XrIY1BQT6LuYSFrNOVPtzBgjz
VgYr1Ro8kSA6dVDzMRaj7VkrJ3mzhrWFgshGTz+94fScSvwbMFOMnQ==
=h6hL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 03:40:22 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
One thing I've learned about freepers is, they always
spit out the red pill.
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:34:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:40:22 -0500, wrote
(in article <1126384822.925403.327420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
One thing I've learned about freepers is, they always
spit out the red pill.
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
YMCA . . . . .
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:37:20 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:40:22 -0500, wrote
(in article <1126384822.925403.327420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
One thing I've learned about freepers is, they always
spit out the red pill.
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
o/` In the navy... o/`
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 07:49:22 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:QJ6Ve.4862$Hs6.3066@trnddc07:
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:40:22 -0500,
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote (in article
<1126384822.925403.327420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
o/` In the navy... o/`
Probably Gilbert Herdt's Sambia, though I'd have to check. I
do know that they form all-male lineages.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQyTFAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHPmgf/TBLoVUnfy7rys4dUz/FYru3e5UBxMq60
HoUKzpL0GBNEcvGUBVb+jQ7R3GO9dEfBQVrMv+rJpcosc/PYnHoVa1qdtqPnBxIV
AhdcqZYZ7fHYd4mrjZyDnhX+ygMiiC/9wFJEvVjS1eS7sVgGLHE5N90K2JfaQzV3
SuPVNG8TaptIv0Za7mcMaQK1vYNZcoocudvR3DnSfias7CXN0Al8QDlasr9v0Qfj
8uinOXh/ELctzW5gNLNdA1TughsiV9eIRTcfhYi+9aZhBPjkSNMv6V775ziiJi5y
QWrjyhc1Za/WRDIvZp2DQ7L3kdoD5WrIs0lYpk+faAQw4op4tdJdhA==
=sZGr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 01:42:02 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
I was thinking "Macho macho man".
Marriage itself is a universal, but the exact
definition of marriage changes from culture to
culture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 02:49:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:42:02 -0500, wrote
(in article <1126550522.797236.300950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Gray Shockley wrote:
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
I was thinking "Macho macho man".
Marriage itself is a universal, but the exact
definition of marriage changes from culture to
culture.
And from couple to couple.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Hooked on alliteration
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 08:20:21 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
For Michael, James, and Gregory -
I guess you guys are right. I just wasn't being liberal enough in my
thinking. I was looking at marriage as a social institution for the
benefit of the children and completely forgetting about the needs of the
adults. We have been so tied to this artificial concept of "family" that
we have failed to see other possibilities in a more free-thinking society.
<snip pointless sarcasm>
Yeah, that's about what I figured. When faced with overwhelming
evidence that your post was stupid, construct a meandering brainfart
that doesn't have anything to do with the original discussion. Which
isn't to say your original post had anything to do with the original
discussion, of course, since that was merely a slightly more polite form
of idiocy.
At any rate, Gary, I'm sorry you've reacted this way. I sincerely hope
that you can eventually become accustomed to constructive criticism,
since you don't seem capable of forming opinions that any rational human
being could accept.
Have a nice day, and go ***** yourself.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 02:33:09 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
For Michael, James, and Gregory -
I guess you guys are right. I just wasn't being liberal enough in my
thinking. I was looking at marriage as a social institution for the
benefit of the children and completely forgetting about the needs of the
adults.
As an attempt to construct a strawman, I give you a C+.
You have asserted that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and
raising the resulting children. I responded with several examples of
heterosexual couples that should not be permitted to get or stay married as a
result of your assertion. If it is not too much trouble, please try to stay on
topic to the discussion at hand.
If marriage, as you claim, "is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and father",
please explain why heterosexual couples who do not meet this very stringent
definition should not be treated as same sex couples with regards to marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 08:44:10 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
As an attempt to construct a strawman, I give you a C+.
You have asserted that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and
raising the resulting children. I responded with several examples of
heterosexual couples that should not be permitted to get or stay married as a
result of your assertion. If it is not too much trouble, please try to stay on
topic to the discussion at hand.
If marriage, as you claim, "is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and father",
please explain why heterosexual couples who do not meet this very stringent
definition should not be treated as same sex couples with regards to marriage.
That isn't too hard to answer, Gregory. What we are dealing with here is
a need for simplicity. It would take a cadre of Philadelphia lawyers to
try to redefine marriage in ways that would satisfy all of the
possibilities. In the past, we did not have the medical knowledge that
would have enabled us to define who could and could not reproduce. We
simply said marriage is for a man and a woman, so that the children who
will inevitably be born will have an identity and will be raised by
someone who cares about them.
Today, there are so many possibilities it is hard to get a grip on all
of the ethical questions. But defining marriage remains one of the
simplest ways of keeping things on an even keel.
Now, if a future study from an army of psychologists determines that
people don't mind not knowing who their parents are, and they can be
perfectly happy, productive citizens without knowing who they are, then
we might reconsider the family structure. Until then, the focus must
remain on the children, not the homosexual couples.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 10:16:28 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KTqUe.40382$p_1.33072@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Gregory Gadow wrote:
As an attempt to construct a strawman, I give you a C+.
You have asserted that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and
raising the resulting children. I responded with several examples of
heterosexual couples that should not be permitted to get or stay married
as a
result of your assertion. If it is not too much trouble, please try to
stay on
topic to the discussion at hand.
If marriage, as you claim, "is about an institution for the procreation
and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father",
please explain why heterosexual couples who do not meet this very
stringent
definition should not be treated as same sex couples with regards to
marriage.
That isn't too hard to answer, Gregory. What we are dealing with here is a
need for simplicity. It would take a cadre of Philadelphia lawyers to try
to redefine marriage in ways that would satisfy all of the possibilities.
In the past, we did not have the medical knowledge that would have enabled
us to define who could and could not reproduce. We simply said marriage is
for a man and a woman, so that the children who will inevitably be born
will have an identity and will be raised by someone who cares about them.
And you think adoptees AREN'T raised by someone who cares about them?!?
*****, sometimes that's more the case than bio kids. Do some research.
Today, there are so many possibilities it is hard to get a grip on all of
the ethical questions. But defining marriage remains one of the simplest
ways of keeping things on an even keel.
In your opinion, of course.
Now, if a future study from an army of psychologists determines that
people don't mind not knowing who their parents are, and they can be
perfectly happy, productive citizens without knowing who they are, then we
might reconsider the family structure. Until then, the focus must remain
on the children, not the homosexual couples.
What about adopted children of heterosexual couples? Many of them are
EXTREMELY happy and productive NOT knowing their bio family.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 07:57:29 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
What about adopted children of heterosexual couples? Many of them are
EXTREMELY happy and productive NOT knowing their bio family.
Well, if they just cannot know it, then there isn't much they can do
about it, is there? My wife's sister adopted a Chinese baby. They are
easier to get because the Chinese limit the number of girl children, so
the mothers will drop them off on the orphanage's doorstep. The child
will never know her real parents, but will be raised well and happy in
her new family.
She will come to understand her story, with the probability that her
mother loved her very much, but had to leave her. But she will not have
to face being told that her father was an anonymous donor, or that her
mother was an egg. It's a human type of distinction that I place value
on, for the sake of the children. I have no experience with the feelings
that might ensue from such knowledge or lack thereof; I am just using my
knowledge of self and human nature to guess that we would all rather be
legitimate than illegitimate; we would rather know who we are than be
told we were "produced" by some artificial means for the delight of our
parents.
It's kind of like the desire to know the sex of a new person. Have you
ever come up behind a person at the grocery store and couldn't tell if
it was a man or a woman? It intrigues you, perhaps even bothers you that
you can't make a determination. Liberals might even say that sexual
identity is unimportant. I just think it is human nature to want to be
one or the other. It occurs to me that right now all I know about you
is your name is Robyn. That doesn't nail it down for me whether you are
male or female. In one post you called me "hon," so I would guess
female, but I would really like to know.
Just human nature.
GAry Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 07:23:58 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZhLUe.49969$p_1.44384@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
What about adopted children of heterosexual couples? Many of them are
EXTREMELY happy and productive NOT knowing their bio family.
Well, if they just cannot know it, then there isn't much they can do about
it, is there?
And I know several that COULD find their bio family if they really wanted.
They have chosen not to.
snip
She will come to understand her story, with the probability that her
mother loved her very much, but had to leave her. But she will not have to
face being told that her father was an anonymous donor, or that her mother
was an egg. It's a human type of distinction that I place value on, for
the sake of the children.
Yeah, but that's just you and you don't get to decide for anyone but
yourself.
I have no experience with the feelings
that might ensue from such knowledge or lack thereof; I am just using my
knowledge of self and human nature to guess that we would all rather be
legitimate than illegitimate; we would rather know who we are than be told
we were "produced" by some artificial means for the delight of our
parents.
Bottom line - Does it really matter how the child came to be if it's raised
by people that love him/her?
It's kind of like the desire to know the sex of a new person. Have you
ever come up behind a person at the grocery store and couldn't tell if it
was a man or a woman?
Sure, but I don't bother myself thinking about it beyond that. I'm just
really not that interested.
It intrigues you, perhaps even bothers you that
you can't make a determination.
No, it bothers YOU. It might not bother anyone else - Certainly doesn't
bother me.
Liberals might even say that sexual
identity is unimportant. I just think it is human nature to want to be one
or the other.
Yes, but that's just your opinion.
It occurs to me that right now all I know about you
is your name is Robyn. That doesn't nail it down for me whether you are
male or female. In one post you called me "hon," so I would guess female,
but I would really like to know.
Figure it out yourself.
Just human nature.
No, just YOUR personality. Why do you assume that everyone feels like you
do?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 08:29:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:23:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
What about adopted children of heterosexual couples? Many of them are
EXTREMELY happy and productive NOT knowing their bio family.
Well, if they just cannot know it, then there isn't much they can do about
it, is there?
And I know several that COULD find their bio family if they really wanted.
They have chosen not to.
I know at least one adoptee who was contacted by his birth mother but
decided not to meet her for personal reasons.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 04:17:05 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:scm9i1t28jctedchioir5fg3ls526pncfq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:23:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
What about adopted children of heterosexual couples? Many of them are
EXTREMELY happy and productive NOT knowing their bio family.
Well, if they just cannot know it, then there isn't much they can do
about
it, is there?
And I know several that COULD find their bio family if they really wanted.
They have chosen not to.
I know at least one adoptee who was contacted by his birth mother but
decided not to meet her for personal reasons.
Exactly. It happens all the time. I originally had no desire to search,
but having the witchling changed my feelings about that. However, I did to
go an adoptee discussion group and was severely berated at the time for NOT
wanting to search.
Everyone's different and it's an extremely personal decision - which can
have disasterous results.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
