| 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: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:16 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:00:31 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
Problem solved.
No imagine one where the population is 100% heterosexual, and another
where 90% of the population is heterosexual, and 10% homosexual.
Jamieson makes a lot of noise for a homosexual guy that is ashamed to
come out of the closet and acknowledge his homosexual stories under
the Greywolf nym.
Still trying to draw attention away from the fact that you have no
argument.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:22:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:45 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:16 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:00:31 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
Problem solved.
No imagine one where the population is 100% heterosexual, and another
where 90% of the population is heterosexual, and 10% homosexual.
Jamieson makes a lot of noise for a homosexual guy that is ashamed to
come out of the closet and acknowledge his homosexual stories under
the Greywolf nym.
Still trying to draw attention away from the fact that you have no
argument.
Argument????? I'm not arguing.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:14:36 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:53 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:45 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:16 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
snip
Jamieson makes a lot of noise for a homosexual guy that is ashamed to
come out of the closet and acknowledge his homosexual stories under
the Greywolf nym.
Still trying to draw attention away from the fact that you have no
argument.
Argument????? I'm not arguing.
Exactly. How refreshing of you to admit it.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 07:10:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:14:36 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:53 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:45 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:16 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
snip
Jamieson makes a lot of noise for a homosexual guy that is ashamed to
come out of the closet and acknowledge his homosexual stories under
the Greywolf nym.
Still trying to draw attention away from the fact that you have no
argument.
Argument????? I'm not arguing.
Exactly. How refreshing of you to admit it.
Admit what? I simply don't have any strong feelings either way about
the gay marriage issue.... You seem to be convinced that there is
some sort of "revolution" going on, and I think you're going to be
disappointed.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 03:10:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:10:17 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:14:36 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:53 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:45 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:16 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
snip
Jamieson makes a lot of noise for a homosexual guy that is ashamed to
come out of the closet and acknowledge his homosexual stories under
the Greywolf nym.
Still trying to draw attention away from the fact that you have no
argument.
Argument????? I'm not arguing.
Exactly. How refreshing of you to admit it.
Admit what? I simply don't have any strong feelings either way about
the gay marriage issue....
I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. I, however, am responding
to what you write in your posts.
You seem to be convinced that there is
some sort of "revolution" going on, and I think you're going to be
disappointed.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 07:25:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:10:37 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:10:17 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:14:36 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:53 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:45 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:23 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:16 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
snip
Jamieson makes a lot of noise for a homosexual guy that is ashamed to
come out of the closet and acknowledge his homosexual stories under
the Greywolf nym.
Still trying to draw attention away from the fact that you have no
argument.
Argument????? I'm not arguing.
Exactly. How refreshing of you to admit it.
Admit what? I simply don't have any strong feelings either way about
the gay marriage issue....
I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. I, however, am responding
to what you write in your posts.
What I write is that I don't think that same sex marriage is going to
happen on a very large scale and that civil unions will have a much
better chance...
You seem to be convinced that there is
some sort of "revolution" going on, and I think you're going to be
disappointed.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 03:27:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:25:01 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
Admit what? I simply don't have any strong feelings either way about
the gay marriage issue....
I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. I, however, am responding
to what you write in your posts.
What I write is that I don't think that same sex marriage is going to
happen on a very large scale and that civil unions will have a much
better chance...
That is hardly all that you write.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 06:28:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:29 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:25:01 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
Admit what? I simply don't have any strong feelings either way about
the gay marriage issue....
I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. I, however, am responding
to what you write in your posts.
What I write is that I don't think that same sex marriage is going to
happen on a very large scale and that civil unions will have a much
better chance...
That is hardly all that you write.
Well, sometimes I laughed a but at people's sad attempts at arguing
their cause, but it's all getting pretty old now....
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 09:04:15 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:28:16 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:27:29 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:25:01 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
snip
Admit what? I simply don't have any strong feelings either way about
the gay marriage issue....
I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. I, however, am responding
to what you write in your posts.
What I write is that I don't think that same sex marriage is going to
happen on a very large scale and that civil unions will have a much
better chance...
That is hardly all that you write.
Well, sometimes I laughed a but at people's sad attempts at arguing
their cause, but it's all getting pretty old now....
Feel free to leave.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 02:02:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:00:31 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
Problem solved.
What problem?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 10:44:02 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
What problem?
The problem of whether hetero or homo sexuality is natural.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 01:54:43 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6RWWe.86077$xl6.26057@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
thomas p wrote:
What problem?
The problem of whether hetero or homo sexuality is natural.
Homosexuality is found in nature.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 03:06:17 PM |
|
|
In <3p373cF85oc7U2@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6RWWe.86077$xl6.26057@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
thomas p wrote:
What problem?
The problem of whether hetero or homo sexuality is natural.
Homosexuality is found in nature.
Not to mention that something that's been found in *our species across all
populations and over thousands years is, by definition, "normal" in our
species...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 06:26:27 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Homosexuality is found in nature.
So is AIDS. So is thalidimide babies. So are siamese twins.
Not to mention that something that's been found in *our species across all
populations and over thousands years is, by definition, "normal" in our
species...
Keep trying, *****.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:04:24 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DC1Xe.84843$p_1.30818@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Homosexuality is found in nature.
So is AIDS. So is thalidimide babies. So are siamese twins.
Not to mention that something that's been found in *our species across
all
populations and over thousands years is, by definition, "normal" in our
species...
Keep trying, *****.
FOAD, dipshit.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:10:08 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Homosexuality is found in nature.
So is AIDS. So is thalidimide babies. So are siamese twins.
Now, now... no being dishonest by trying to imply that homosexuality is
somehow equivalent to AIDS, or birth defects.
Not to mention that something that's been found in *our species across all
populations and over thousands years is, by definition, "normal" in our
species...
Keep trying, *****.
Oh, and a misogynist, too. You're a real gem, Gary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:25:45 PM |
|
|
In <DC1Xe.84843$p_1.30818@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Homosexuality is found in nature.
So is AIDS. So is thalidimide babies. So are siamese twins.
Not to mention that something that's been found in *our species across
all populations and over thousands years is, by definition, "normal" in
our species...
Keep trying, *****.
Grow. Up.
<plonk>
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:14:36 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:26:27 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Homosexuality is found in nature.
So is AIDS. So is thalidimide babies. So are siamese twins.
So is everything that exists in the physical world. Thank you for
admitting that calling homosexuality unnatural is meaningless and
incorrect.
Not to mention that something that's been found in *our species across all
populations and over thousands years is, by definition, "normal" in our
species...
Keep trying, *****.
Keep repeating what is objectively true, or are you going to claim
that homosexuality has not so existed for thousands of years?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:57:37 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:26:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Homosexuality is found in nature.
So is AIDS. So is thalidimide babies. So are siamese twins.
Um, wrong on count two. Thalidomide is an artificial drug created to
combat morning sickness.
Cojoined twins and AIDS are natual. Your point?
Not to mention that something that's been found in *our species across all
populations and over thousands years is, by definition, "normal" in our
species...
Keep trying, *****.
Try to keep a civil voice, please.
Homosexuality is something that's been with us from the beginning of
our species, and probably before that.
--
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: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:39:40 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
thomas p wrote:
What problem?
The problem of whether hetero or homo sexuality is natural.
Gary Eickmeier
Its natural that a certain portion of a nation's
population will in fact be homosexual.
This is a fact of nature and has been in human history
since cities were founded.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:18:41 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
thomas p wrote:
What problem?
The problem of whether hetero or homo sexuality is natural.
It occurs in nature, therefore it is natural.
Next "problem"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:44:02 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
What problem?
The problem of whether hetero or homo sexuality is natural.
Oh, I see; you are talking about a make-believe problem.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 11:21:45 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
01:00:31 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
Except we're discussing the real world, where 3-5% of the population
is exclusively gay.
--
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: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 03:29:39 PM |
|
|
On 2005-09-16 15:44:04 -0700, "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
Maybe not, but in the case of marriage, which is a legally-sanctioned
contractual relationship, governments *can* call a same-sex marriage a
same-sex marriage.
Furthermore, marriage does not have to be sanctioned by the state to be
considered such.
*You* are merely screaming from your little chair that a same-sex
couple, perhaps in your neigborhood even, one who went to some church
somewhere and said vows before a minister of some kind, and thereafter
has considered themselves married, cannot use that word.
All you can do is protest that they are not married "in reality." How
laughably impotent is that! Such useless heat!
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have
taken my wages in people.
- Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 02:02:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:44:04 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
snip
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
Marriage, on the other hand, is not a part of nature. Marriage is a
legal contract. It is created and defined by human society. Marriage
in a number of countries and states in the US now includes same-sex
partnerships.
They can, however, much like in the wonderful
Land of Oz, create ersatz "marriages" based
on wishes and self-deception.
Governments have long engaged in such
obvious distortions of reality.
The reality is that marriage is a man-made institution, and it has
been redefined many times throughout history.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:32:48 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ifni1tc67ojld32i9msaecempihpjf2ib@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:44:04 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
snip
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the
Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
Marriage, on the other hand, is not a part of nature.
Marriage is rooted in the natural opposition
and complementarity of the two sexes. It is
not simply a fungible catch basin for
postmodern wishes and fantasies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 10:59:45 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ifni1tc67ojld32i9msaecempihpjf2ib@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:44:04 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
snip
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the
Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
Marriage, on the other hand, is not a part of nature.
Marriage is rooted in the natural opposition
and complementarity of the two sexes. It is
not simply a fungible catch basin for
postmodern wishes and fantasies.
Given that the institution of marriage now includes same-sex couples in
several countries and one state in the United States, and given that
many churches perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, aren't
your continual statements that such marriages do not exist getting a
tad irrational?
Likewise, you keep making the above claim concerning the foundation of
marriage, but, when asked for substantiation, you say "it's
self-evident."
I mean, really, it's like you live on a different planet than the rest
of us do. Reality appears to be at odds with your picture of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 12:02:07 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ifni1tc67ojld32i9msaecempihpjf2ib@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:44:04 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
snip
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the
Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
Marriage, on the other hand, is not a part of nature.
Marriage is rooted in the natural opposition
and complementarity of the two sexes. It is
not simply a fungible catch basin for
postmodern wishes and fantasies.
Given that the institution of marriage now includes same-sex couples in
several countries and one state in the United States, and given that
many churches perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, aren't
your continual statements that such marriages do not exist getting a
tad irrational?
The institution of marriage now includes plural couples in several
societies; that does not mean iut should be adopted HERE.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 12:15:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ifni1tc67ojld32i9msaecempihpjf2ib@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:44:04 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
snip
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the
Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
Marriage, on the other hand, is not a part of nature.
Marriage is rooted in the natural opposition
and complementarity of the two sexes. It is
not simply a fungible catch basin for
postmodern wishes and fantasies.
Given that the institution of marriage now includes same-sex couples in
several countries and one state in the United States, and given that
many churches perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, aren't
your continual statements that such marriages do not exist getting a
tad irrational?
The institution of marriage now includes plural couples in several societies;
Oh? Which ones?
that does not mean iut should be adopted HERE.
It also does not mean they should *not* be adopted here.
What, exactly, is your objection to same-sex couples being able to
marry?
Please keep in mind that same-sex couples are marrying in Canada,
Spain, The Netherlands, and the State of Massachussetts, and that those
countries and state still exist, still have marriages, and show no
signs of being turned into pillars of salt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:48 PM |
|
|
On 17 Sep 2005 10:15:35 -0700, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com>
wrote:
mejercit@hotmail.com wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ifni1tc67ojld32i9msaecempihpjf2ib@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:44:04 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
snip
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the
Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
Marriage, on the other hand, is not a part of nature.
Marriage is rooted in the natural opposition
and complementarity of the two sexes. It is
not simply a fungible catch basin for
postmodern wishes and fantasies.
Given that the institution of marriage now includes same-sex couples in
several countries and one state in the United States, and given that
many churches perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, aren't
your continual statements that such marriages do not exist getting a
tad irrational?
The institution of marriage now includes plural couples in several societies;
Oh? Which ones?
that does not mean iut should be adopted HERE.
It also does not mean they should *not* be adopted here.
What, exactly, is your objection to same-sex couples being able to
marry?
At least he now admits that such marriages do exist.
Please keep in mind that same-sex couples are marrying in Canada,
Spain, The Netherlands, and the State of Massachussetts, and that those
countries and state still exist, still have marriages, and show no
signs of being turned into pillars of salt.
Yeah, but it's icky!
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
