| 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: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 01:18:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:33:15 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> posted:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ivg5j19s1eatsvmvs9r0gnvet1ir90mjhd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:35:52 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> posted:
Because he's nothing but a dime-store bigot. His tortured mind is
overwhelmed with seething, irrational hatred for gays, probably because
he's having a hard time suppressing his own homosexual desires.
Thas bootiful, Chrissy. You bash the guy for homophobia while
slipping in the dig that he's probably a little light in the loafers
himself.
It's a fact that pretty much every homophobe is a self-loathing homosexual.
You gotta cite for that stupid little factoid, Chrissy?
While your at it, you gotta 'nother cite proving that the person you
call a "homophobe" is indeed a "homophobe" and not merely someone
who takes a dim view of removing all meaning from the word
"marriage"?
That makes them hypocrites. I reserve the right to verbally bash hypocrites.
Be as stupid as you want, Chrissy. I think it's a disgrace, but
some people might find it entertaining.
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:45:59 PM |
|
|
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9ct5j1hnn6fn8vtgrslo4sonvh8b75urbu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:33:15 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> posted:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ivg5j19s1eatsvmvs9r0gnvet1ir90mjhd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:35:52 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> posted:
Because he's nothing but a dime-store bigot. His tortured mind is
overwhelmed with seething, irrational hatred for gays, probably because
he's having a hard time suppressing his own homosexual desires.
Thas bootiful, Chrissy. You bash the guy for homophobia while
slipping in the dig that he's probably a little light in the loafers
himself.
It's a fact that pretty much every homophobe is a self-loathing
homosexual.
You gotta cite for that stupid little factoid, Chrissy?
Have you got a cite for the sky being blue? I don't need to cite things that
are obvious.
While your at it, you gotta 'nother cite proving that the person you
call a "homophobe" is indeed a "homophobe" and not merely someone
who takes a dim view of removing all meaning from the word
"marriage"?
Because anyone who opposes equal rights for gays hates gays. Anyone who
hates gays fears gays. Anyone who fears gays is a homophobe.
That makes them hypocrites. I reserve the right to verbally bash
hypocrites.
Be as stupid as you want, Chrissy. I think it's a disgrace, but
some people might find it entertaining.
Of course you think so. Hypocrisy is a necessary condition for being a
right-winger. It is impossible to be a conservative and not be a hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:42:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:45:59 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> posted:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9ct5j1hnn6fn8vtgrslo4sonvh8b75urbu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:33:15 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> posted:
It's a fact that pretty much every homophobe is a self-loathing
homosexual.
You gotta cite for that stupid little factoid, Chrissy?
Have you got a cite for the sky being blue? I don't need to cite things that
are obvious.
That's what I thought. You have no facts. Instead of facts, all
you have, Chrissy, are trite and ignorant prejudices and your inane
willingness to utter any stupidity, no matter how embarrassing to
yourself.
While your at it, you gotta 'nother cite proving that the person you
call a "homophobe" is indeed a "homophobe" and not merely someone
who takes a dim view of removing all meaning from the word
"marriage"?
Because anyone who opposes equal rights for gays hates gays. Anyone who
hates gays fears gays. Anyone who fears gays is a homophobe.
Naturally, Chrissy has to spout more of his trademark nonsensical
non-logic.
Did you ever wonder that such abject displays of asininity might
hurt your cause more than help it?
<shrug>
Personally, I don't know anyone who "opposes equal rights for gays",
Chrissy. I do think the people trying to bastardize "marriage" (the
basic building block of civilization) are out of their minds, but
many of them are heterosexuals. I don't give a damn what people do
privately, or how they describe their relationships, but marriage,
by definition, is between a man and a woman. No amount of prancing
around pretending that one's perversions are deserving of sanctity
will change that fact.
That makes them hypocrites. I reserve the right to verbally bash hypocrites.
Be as stupid as you want, Chrissy. I think it's a disgrace, but
some people might find it entertaining.
Of course you think so. Hypocrisy is a necessary condition for being a
right-winger. It is impossible to be a conservative and not be a hypocrite.
Oh, shut up, you gibbering idiot.
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
23 Sep 2005 09:15:36 AM |
|
|
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:4cu6j19vv7fg25k9u9satksoab8a7j7l7l@4ax.com...
Personally, I don't know anyone who "opposes equal rights for gays"
MikeSoja, meet MikeSoja.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1907 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
23 Sep 2005 09:55:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:15:36 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:4cu6j19vv7fg25k9u9satksoab8a7j7l7l@4ax.com...
Personally, I don't know anyone who "opposes equal rights for gays"
MikeSoja, meet MikeSoja.
Truly a match made in . . .
Hmm.
"'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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:32:43 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 19 Sep 2005 20:42:00 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
But neither can couples in their 60s. They cannot have children and
they cannot teach children by example because it is a bad example.
Hey man, rewind couple pages back, I already said that when man and
woman get married they serve as an example for younger people. By
getting married they support system of marriage where one woman marry
one man and man become a husband and woman become a wife. If two same
sex people claim that they are married, they do not support system of
procreation and reproduction of society. Note a key word - system.
System - something that works. System of reproduction of society that
works.
Except, as we have shown over and over, legally marriage is not about
procreation.
If you are going to be silly about this, might as well end the conversation here.
Whole story about same sex marriage cannot be considered serious also.
Look, after you redefine concept of marriage, it would mean that there
no such thing as husband and wife. If no such thing as husband and wife
whey we should differentiate between man and the woman. Accordingly, it
would be very unfair to man because, woman can create a family by just
getting pregnant, but man cant'.
I'm sorry, but gay marriage is legal in an increasing number of
places, and straights are still getting married. My marriage is doing
fine.
--
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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 10:39:45 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 19 Sep 2005 20:04:47 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
So, why then can't same sex couples get married and do the same?
do the same what? same sex couple cannot serve as a an example to be
imitated because same sex couple cannot have children, they can't
teach children by example because it is a bad example.
Amazing. With no evidence at all, you continue to insist that
marriage is all about children. It isn't. At all.
You married?
After all,
there is the concept of "Equal rights for all" that you have to contend with.
Equal for whom?, for people that have different behavior and lifestyle.
YES! That's exactly what it means! Equal rights for EVERYONE. So
long as your behavoir does not actually injure someone, there is no
reason to restrict it.
Well, some people can't sleep at night, why don't we enforce the law
that make day and night equal, so we don't have to worry about closed
stores and offices.
Because that would be unwearranted interference by the government in
private industry. Allowing gays to marry does not do that.
sure I am a man and want to have an equal right to get pregnant as many
time as I want, if you can provide that right for me I will definitely
consider your statements about equality.
OK, now you're just getting pathetic. I'd love to be able to pitch
for the Giants, but since my fastball tops out at 35mph, it ain't
gonna happen. I do not have a right to live out my every fantasy, but
marriage is a right. Deal with it.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 11:04:01 PM |
|
|
Amazing. With no evidence at all, you continue to insist that
marriage is all about children. It isn't. At all
It is really amazing, I repeated this several times and you did not get
it. There is a system of procration of reproduction of society, you
know what the system is - it is something that works independently.
Marriage is not about children or about love or about sex it is about
system to reproduce society. Is it really hard? Like you have a
computer, you have a hard drive you have memory processor, you have
software. To make computer work you have to put all those things
together so it will be a SYSTEM.
Equal rights for EVERYONE. So
long as your behavoir does not actually injure someone,
there is no reason to restrict it.
You not injure physically but you trying to break a system, so injure
will be destruction of my understanding of marriage that would cause
the destruction of system. like computer virus will not destroy your
processor but it will break a system. Of course you know what the
system is.
I do not have a right to live out my every fantasy, but
marriage is a right. Deal with it.
No No and No it has nothing to do with human rights, you want me to
deal with your definition of marriage and I do not want to deal with
it, because it is my life style and I am about to see how you prove
that my life style have damaging effect on society. So you force me to
seek alternatives to marriage because I will not accept your defintion
of marriage. You destroy my marriage you violate my basic human right,
that is all I can tell you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 01:09:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Amazing. With no evidence at all, you continue to insist that
marriage is all about children. It isn't. At all
It is really amazing, I repeated this several times and you did not get
it.
So, do you believe that, if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, a
sufficient number of children wouldn't get married and have children of
their own because they lacked role models which guided them to do so?
So, in other words, legal same-sex marriage would result in too few
babies being born?
Is that a fair summarization of your position?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:38:27 AM |
|
|
So, do you believe that, if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, a
sufficient number of children wouldn't get married and have children of
their own because they lacked role models which guided them to do so?
So, in other words, legal same-sex marriage would result in too few
babies being born?
Is that a fair summarization of your position?
Thank you for summarization, but to describe it as my position you have
to include an notion of system, otherwise it will be just an argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:37:16 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 19 Sep 2005 21:04:01 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
Amazing. With no evidence at all, you continue to insist that
marriage is all about children. It isn't. At all
It is really amazing, I repeated this several times and you did not get
it. There is a system of procration of reproduction of society, you
know what the system is - it is something that works independently.
Marriage is not about children or about love or about sex it is about
system to reproduce society. Is it really hard? Like you have a
computer, you have a hard drive you have memory processor, you have
software. To make computer work you have to put all those things
together so it will be a SYSTEM.
You've never been married. I can tell.
Marriage is about a partnership between two people.
Equal rights for EVERYONE. So
long as your behavoir does not actually injure someone,
there is no reason to restrict it.
You not injure physically but you trying to break a system, so injure
will be destruction of my understanding of marriage that would cause
the destruction of system. like computer virus will not destroy your
processor but it will break a system. Of course you know what the
system is.
I've been married 14 years. How *exactly* wil two gay men getting
married destroy my marriage. Please, be specific! How will gay
marriage prevent other heterosexuals from marrying? Note that hets
are still marrying everywhere that gay marriage is legal.
I do not have a right to live out my every fantasy, but
marriage is a right. Deal with it.
No No and No it has nothing to do with human rights, you want me to
deal with your definition of marriage and I do not want to deal with
it, because it is my life style and I am about to see how you prove
that my life style have damaging effect on society. So you force me to
seek alternatives to marriage because I will not accept your defintion
of marriage. You destroy my marriage you violate my basic human right,
that is all I can tell you.
Ah. Now I see. YOU are the one who will refuse to get married if
gays have the same access. So the problem is yours, not society's.
If your marriage, or your concept of marriage is so damn weak that
what others do can destroy it, I pity you.
--
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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 09:38:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
So, love has nothing to do with it?
love makes people happier but marriage is not about love, marriage is
an incentive for heterosexual couple to create a family and stay
together as family
And if a family is not what the two people want?
People beyond reproductive age are not allowed to marry? Sterile people, too?
As long as those people are one man and one woman they will always be
allowed to marry and stay togther as long as possible, serving as an
example to be imitated.
Where did you get this definition? That marriage must be an example to
be imitated?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 09:43:07 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:FwpXe.10958$Yu2.1160@trnddc02:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
So, love has nothing to do with it?
love makes people happier but marriage is not about love, marriage is
an incentive for heterosexual couple to create a family and stay
together as family
And if a family is not what the two people want?
People beyond reproductive age are not allowed to marry? Sterile
people, too?
As long as those people are one man and one woman they will always be
allowed to marry and stay togther as long as possible, serving as an
example to be imitated.
Where did you get this definition? That marriage must be an example
to be imitated?
Whenever one argument gets shot down, he pulls "chimp", reaches around to
his *****, and flings a different handfull of *****.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
-Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:38:18 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 19:34:06 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
So, love has nothing to do with it?
love makes people happier but marriage is not about love, marriage is
an incentive for heterosexual couple to create a family and stay
together as family
Never been married I see.
People beyond reproductive age are not allowed to marry? Sterile people, too?
As long as those people are one man and one woman they will always be
allowed to marry and stay togther as long as possible, serving as an
example to be imitated.
ROTFLMAO!!!
--
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: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 04:52:39 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
Love is not equal to marriage, if for you love is equivalent to
marriage then we have nothing to talk about.
Then what is marriage about, if not love?
Finance and social status. See Pride and Prejudice.
And by the way you are a bigot against traditional family.
Howso? How is "gay marriage" against "traditional family?" And define
"traditional family" for me, if you would.
A traditional family is when the man goes off on military
tours for months (if not years) on end, comes home to
impregnate his wife, and then heads off again. So the
wife draws some of the husband's pay, brings up the kids
and possibly works as well.
Alternatively, if you're rich enough, a traditional
family is where the kids go off to boarding school and
visit their parents a few times a year, while being
sodomized the rest of the time. Not to be confused
with orphanages where the father vanished, the mother
was taken into a nunnery and the kids were just
sodomized all the time.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:33:16 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
Love is not equal to marriage, if for you love is equivalent to
marriage then we have nothing to talk about.
Then what is marriage about, if not love?
Finance and social status. See Pride and Prejudice.
And by the way you are a bigot against traditional family.
Howso? How is "gay marriage" against "traditional family?" And
define "traditional family" for me, if you would.
A traditional family is when the man goes off on military
tours for months (if not years) on end, comes home to
impregnate his wife, and then heads off again. So the
wife draws some of the husband's pay, brings up the kids
and possibly works as well.
Alternatively, if you're rich enough, a traditional
family is where the kids go off to boarding school and
visit their parents a few times a year, while being
sodomized the rest of the time. Not to be confused
with orphanages where the father vanished, the mother
was taken into a nunnery and the kids were just
sodomized all the time.
Another form of traditional family might involve might involve a
powerful man taking as many wives as he can an impregnating ALL of them,
THEN going off on military campaign. The children could be raised by
slaves. Then again, another form of traditional family might involve a
man getting an older woman pregnant, marrying her, and the taking off
for London to pursue a career as a playwright. Or a man impregnating
his slaves and having the children raised by eunuchs. Lots and lots of
traditional families.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:38:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
How? My wife and I still love each other even though we've been to
gay commitment ceremonies. How is gay marriage going to destroy my
marriage?
Love is not equal to marriage, if for you love is equivalent to
marriage then we have nothing to talk about.
I married for love. I don't know a couple who didn't. Love is not
equivalent to marriage, no, but it is the reason that everyone I know
married.
And by the way you are a bigot against traditional family.
How can I be a bigot against traditional family when I *am* part of a
traditional family?
Also, what do *you* mean by traditional? Do you mean the (very recent,
historically speaking) "nuclear" family, the more historically common
extended family, or something else?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:36:16 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 08:06:27 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
How? My wife and I still love each other even though we've been to
gay commitment ceremonies. How is gay marriage going to destroy my
marriage?
Love is not equal to marriage, if for you love is equivalent to
marriage then we have nothing to talk about.
Love, trust and respect are the basis for marriage. without them yiou
have nothing.
And by the way you are a bigot against traditional family.
No, I support all types of families. Today I'm bringing gifts for my
sister's new baby. The fact that I can;t have kids doesn;t stop me
from being a great uncle to my sibling's kids.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 01:54:19 PM |
|
|
Love, trust and respect are the basis for marriage. without them yiou have nothing.
so, then no one deny you trust respect and love. Please stop attacking
existing institutions, if you don't like them then go ahead try to
abolish them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 07:05:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Love, trust and respect are the basis for marriage. without them yiou have nothing.
so, then no one deny you trust respect and love. Please stop attacking
existing institutions, if you don't like them then go ahead try to
abolish them.
Please explain how allowing same-sex marriage "attacks existing
institutions."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:21:12 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 11:54:19 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
Love, trust and respect are the basis for marriage. without them yiou have nothing.
so, then no one deny you trust respect and love. Please stop attacking
existing institutions, if you don't like them then go ahead try to
abolish them.
I'm not attacking anything, except in the minds of people who claim
that gay marriage will destroy marriage, but can;t seem to come up
with one single fucking effect it will actually have!
I ask again: What the ***** do you people think is going to happen to
my marriage, or my sister's, or that of the nice couple downstairs
from me, if gay marriage becomes legal in my state? I want you all to
specifiy how this minor change in a law's wording will destroy any of
our marriages, which have endured from 18 months to 27 years!
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 06:50:52 PM |
|
|
I ask again: What the ***** do you people think is going to happen to my marriage
I answer again - it is not going to be a marriage, it will be something
new that you OK with, but I don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:33:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I ask again: What the ***** do you people think is going to happen to my marriage
I answer again - it is not going to be a marriage, it will be something
new that you OK with, but I don't.
"OK" is irrelevant. You may not like it but it will remain an opinion.
Now, answer the qestion: What is going to happen to man-woman
marriage if man-man or woman-woman marriage is allowed? Here, I'll give
you a hint:
Absolutely nothing.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:25:36 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 16:50:52 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
I ask again: What the ***** do you people think is going to happen to my marriage
I answer again - it is not going to be a marriage, it will be something
new that you OK with, but I don't.
Sorry, but by law it is a marriage. And your inability to define how
it will "destroy" marriage is telling.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 02:37:11 PM |
|
|
just a thought, I think the fact that man and women have separate
bathrooms is blatant violation of human rights. I really want to use
women's bathroom and I have couple of women who don't mind that I share
a lavatory with them. I believe in Germany it is perfectly normal, why
don't we do it here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 07:13:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
just a thought, I think the fact that man and women have separate
bathrooms is blatant violation of human rights. I really want to use
women's bathroom and I have couple of women who don't mind that I share
a lavatory with them. I believe in Germany it is perfectly normal, why
don't we do it here.
What does this have to do with same-sex marriage again?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:22:09 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 12:37:11 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
just a thought, I think the fact that man and women have separate
bathrooms is blatant violation of human rights. I really want to use
women's bathroom and I have couple of women who don't mind that I share
a lavatory with them. I believe in Germany it is perfectly normal, why
don't we do it here.
Good question. I've used same sex facilites before, and don't care.
Of course, the line for the women's room is often longer than the
mens.
--
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: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:38:32 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 12:37:11 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
just a thought, I think the fact that man and women have separate
bathrooms is blatant violation of human rights. I really want to use
women's bathroom and I have couple of women who don't mind that I share
a lavatory with them. I believe in Germany it is perfectly normal, why
don't we do it here.
Good question. I've used same sex facilites before, and don't care.
So have I; ditto.
Of course, the line for the women's room is often longer than the
mens.
Depends whether they're drinking shorts vs. beer.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:32:48 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> 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.
The above is your opinion. The reality is that marriage is a legal
contract. Legal contracts are defined by man-made law. The laws
defining marriage have been changed many times. None of that is my
opinion; it is objective fact.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 06:31:49 PM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
The above is your opinion. The reality is that marriage is a legal
contract. Legal contracts are defined by man-made law. The laws
defining marriage have been changed many times. None of that is my
opinion; it is objective fact.
You're getting close. Keep thinking about it.
Marriage is defined by man-made law.
Most of us do not wish for homosexual relations to be defined as marriage.
This law will not be changed.
None of this is my opinion, it is objective fact.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
