| 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: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 01:34:52 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
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.
So would you deny anyone the right or ability to search for his or her
birth parents?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 01:50:59 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gTjVe.35332$4i6.445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
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.
So would you deny anyone the right or ability to search for his or her
birth parents?
Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I would deny anyone the
right or ability? Certainly not from any of my posts. Did you miss my post
where I stated that I'M being denied biological information?
Are you thinking of someone else or did you make this up?
--
------
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 |
12 Sep 2005 07:47:44 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gTjVe.35332$4i6.445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
So would you deny anyone the right or ability to search for his or her
birth parents?
Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I would deny anyone the
right or ability? Certainly not from any of my posts. Did you miss my post
where I stated that I'M being denied biological information?
Are you thinking of someone else or did you make this up?
I'm just pointing out that in a scheme such as the homosexuals are
envisioning, it is much more possible that the children will not be able
to find out their lineage, even if they want to. That is quite a bit
different from not desiring to find out.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 08:13:07 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QkpVe.38110$4i6.105@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gTjVe.35332$4i6.445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
So would you deny anyone the right or ability to search for his or her
birth parents?
Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I would deny anyone the
right or ability? Certainly not from any of my posts. Did you miss my
post
where I stated that I'M being denied biological information?
Are you thinking of someone else or did you make this up?
I'm just pointing out that in a scheme such as the homosexuals are
envisioning, it is much more possible that the children will not be able
to find out their lineage, even if they want to. That is quite a bit
different from not desiring to find out.
What makes you think the parents, same sex or otherwise, won't try to get as
much information about the bio parents as possible? Lots of people that
adopt or conceive via sperm/egg donor do this. It's the smart thing to do,
especially on the subject of medical information. If anything their child
will probably definitely know their lineage as far as if they're English,
Dutch, German, etc. I might have had to find out my bio mom's name on my
own, but I already knew that I was German and Scottish from my
non-identifying info that I received from the adoption agency.
You make it sound like the children of same sex couples will be completely
without a history and that probably won't be the case. Especially in the
case of a lesbian couple where one of them bears the child. Shoot, I don't
know who my bio dad is - Big deal.
It seems that you would rather focus on the potentially negative aspects
rather the extremely positive aspect of the child being raised in a loving
home. Just because your lineage is so important to you doesn't mean it's
the same for everyone. Why would you think so?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 08:38:24 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gTjVe.35332$4i6.445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
So would you deny anyone the right or ability to search for his or her
birth parents?
Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I would deny anyone the
right or ability? Certainly not from any of my posts. Did you miss
my post
where I stated that I'M being denied biological information?
Are you thinking of someone else or did you make this up?
I'm just pointing out that in a scheme such as the homosexuals are
envisioning, it is much more possible that the children will not be able
to find out their lineage, even if they want to. That is quite a bit
different from not desiring to find out.
And where do you get that idea? Who said that homosexual marriage would
make it much more difficult to find out a child's lineage, should they
desire to do so?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 09:21:33 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
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 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.
'If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state
interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, [...] what
justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of
marriage to homosexual couples [...] Surely not the encouragement of
procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.'
Antonin Scalia dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 07:36:21 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
'If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state
interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, [...] what
justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of
marriage to homosexual couples [...] Surely not the encouragement of
procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.'
Antonin Scalia dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas.
The sterile and the elderly cannot produce illegitimate children.
Homosexuals can, and MUST, if they are not satisfied with adoption.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 08:21:07 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
'If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state
interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, [...] what
justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of
marriage to homosexual couples [...] Surely not the encouragement of
procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.'
Antonin Scalia dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas.
The sterile and the elderly cannot produce illegitimate children.
Homosexuals can, and MUST, if they are not satisfied with adoption.
That's true with or without same-sex marriage. The choice is to have
the child raised by one natural parent plus his/her same-sex lover
either 1) with the couple unmarried, or 2) the couple married. Are you
arguing that the former should be preferred over the latter?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 10:00:09 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The sterile and the elderly cannot produce illegitimate children.
Homosexuals can, and MUST, if they are not satisfied with adoption.
That's true with or without same-sex marriage. The choice is to have
the child raised by one natural parent plus his/her same-sex lover
either 1) with the couple unmarried, or 2) the couple married. Are you
arguing that the former should be preferred over the latter?
No. Just that society should not bless such activities with a formal
go-ahead.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 07:19:30 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z4NUe.66133$xl6.28581@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The sterile and the elderly cannot produce illegitimate children.
Homosexuals can, and MUST, if they are not satisfied with adoption.
That's true with or without same-sex marriage. The choice is to have the
child raised by one natural parent plus his/her same-sex lover either 1)
with the couple unmarried, or 2) the couple married. Are you arguing
that the former should be preferred over the latter?
No. Just that society should not bless such activities with a formal
go-ahead.
Why not? Because you think so?
--
------
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 11:02:26 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z4NUe.66133$xl6.28581@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
No. Just that society should not bless such activities with a formal
go-ahead.
Why not? Because you think so?
I guess either I am unable to communicate or you are unable to
comprehend my argument. There is nothing more I can think of to
illustrate my reasoning. Thanks for your attention and responses.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 04:18:49 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m57Ve.61558$p_1.43719@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z4NUe.66133$xl6.28581@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
No. Just that society should not bless such activities with a formal
go-ahead.
Why not? Because you think so?
I guess either I am unable to communicate or you are unable to comprehend
my argument. There is nothing more I can think of to illustrate my
reasoning. Thanks for your attention and responses.
I see my question was too difficult for you to answer and now you're running
away with your tail between your legs. How pathetic.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 01:30:33 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m57Ve.61558$p_1.43719@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z4NUe.66133$xl6.28581@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
No. Just that society should not bless such activities with a formal
go-ahead.
Why not? Because you think so?
I guess either I am unable to communicate or you are unable to comprehend
my argument. There is nothing more I can think of to illustrate my
reasoning. Thanks for your attention and responses.
I see my question was too difficult for you to answer and now you're running
away with your tail between your legs. How pathetic.
Robbie, I have nothing against you. I thank you for the discussion, from
the point of view of someone who should know.
But does the phrase "for the children" ring a bell for you? Maybe if you
re-read the entire thread a few times it will sink in.
Regards,
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 01:49:16 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dPjVe.35301$4i6.11450@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m57Ve.61558$p_1.43719@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z4NUe.66133$xl6.28581@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
No. Just that society should not bless such activities with a formal
go-ahead.
Why not? Because you think so?
I guess either I am unable to communicate or you are unable to
comprehend
my argument. There is nothing more I can think of to illustrate my
reasoning. Thanks for your attention and responses.
I see my question was too difficult for you to answer and now you're
running
away with your tail between your legs. How pathetic.
Robbie, I have nothing against you. I thank you for the discussion, from
the point of view of someone who should know.
But does the phrase "for the children" ring a bell for you? Maybe if you
re-read the entire thread a few times it will sink in.
Har de har har, Mr. Condescending.
Dude, it sunk in. Has that concept ever crossed YOUR mind? Isn't the most
important thing that the child be raised in a loving, supportive atmosphere
regardless whether it's by their bio parents or not? You can't seem to wrap
your mind around that idea. You seem more obsessed with imaginary baby
factories and the idea that these children won't know their entire
heritage - A lot of people that are raised by their biological parents don't
know much about their past.
Take it from one who knows - Being born a ***** is definitely not the
worst thing in the world.
I'm curious as to why you're so obsessed with the issue. Are you adopted?
Were you not raised by your biological parents?
--
------
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 |
12 Sep 2005 07:44:33 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
Take it from one who knows - Being born a ***** is definitely not the
worst thing in the world.
Well, obviously I can't put myself in your skin; all I can do is guess
that it is not the best thing in the world, either.
I'm curious as to why you're so obsessed with the issue. Are you adopted?
Were you not raised by your biological parents?
No, yes. I have photos of my great and great-great grandparents, and a
family tree, the works. I can go to Switzerland, to the town where my
grandmother was born, and visit a cemetary that is filled with my
ancestors. I saw the hotel where my grandmother was born in 1881. I
heard our family name from Ronald Reagan's lips on the General Electric
Theater when I was a teenager, because the program was about the
electrical genius Charles Steinmetz, who was given a home in New York by
my great grandfather August Eickmeier. We are German, Swiss, and Dutch,
and have relatives all over Europe. We are a proud family with regular
reunions and many contributors to society.
Well, you asked...
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 07:54:24 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RhpVe.38108$4i6.32234@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Take it from one who knows - Being born a ***** is definitely not the
worst thing in the world.
Well, obviously I can't put myself in your skin; all I can do is guess
that it is not the best thing in the world, either.
Well, duh, of course not, but it sure beats being born blind, disabled, etc.
It also beats having bio parents that beat and/or molested you. Bastardy
doesn't have the stigma it did years ago - Though it seems to bother the
heck out of you for some reason.
I'm curious as to why you're so obsessed with the issue. Are you
adopted?
Were you not raised by your biological parents?
No, yes.
Okay, I guess what you're saying here is that you're obsessed with the
issue. Why?
I have photos of my great and great-great grandparents, and a
family tree, the works. I can go to Switzerland, to the town where my
grandmother was born, and visit a cemetary that is filled with my
ancestors. I saw the hotel where my grandmother was born in 1881. I heard
our family name from Ronald Reagan's lips on the General Electric Theater
when I was a teenager, because the program was about the electrical genius
Charles Steinmetz, who was given a home in New York by my great
grandfather August Eickmeier. We are German, Swiss, and Dutch, and have
relatives all over Europe. We are a proud family with regular reunions and
many contributors to society.
Well, you asked...
You say that like you expect this to bother me or something. Hate to break
it to you, but you're no more special than the next person, though if it
makes you feel better to think that, g'head.
Well, good for you. Obviously your lineage is very important to you. Other
people couldn't care less about their family history. John Adams happens to
be an ancestor of mine. Sorta cool, but doesn't mean ***** in the long run.
--
------
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 |
12 Sep 2005 09:51:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:44:33 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
No, yes. I have photos of my great and great-great grandparents, and a
family tree, the works. I can go to Switzerland, to the town where my
grandmother was born, and visit a cemetary that is filled with my
ancestors. I saw the hotel where my grandmother was born in 1881. I
heard our family name from Ronald Reagan's lips on the General Electric
Theater when I was a teenager, because the program was about the
electrical genius Charles Steinmetz, who was given a home in New York by
my great grandfather August Eickmeier. We are German, Swiss, and Dutch,
and have relatives all over Europe. We are a proud family with regular
reunions and many contributors to society.
I can trace my family tree to a land grant by King Edward IV in 1472.
We have a complete geneology covering the time from the grant of ten
acres for "servise to thee Crowyn" to the present day. The history
includes heroes, rogues, and traitors.
None of it matters anything compared to how I was raised by my
parents.
Now assume that I, at this late date, learned I was adopted. Would it
change anything? No! I'd still be a Berry, by name and environment
if not by birth.
--
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: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 10:12:06 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The sterile and the elderly cannot produce illegitimate children.
Homosexuals can, and MUST, if they are not satisfied with adoption.
That's true with or without same-sex marriage. The choice is to have
the child raised by one natural parent plus his/her same-sex lover
either 1) with the couple unmarried, or 2) the couple married. Are
you arguing that the former should be preferred over the latter?
No. Just that society should not bless such activities with a formal
go-ahead.
Why, given we have already established it can't be to promote
procreation (elderly and infertile) nor to prefer having the children of
same-sex couples to be raised outside of marriage (as you admitted above)?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 08:56:02 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
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.
Well then, why not require a fertility test before marriage? What could
be simpler than "Only fertile, mixed-sex couples can marry." ?
What do you do about couples who are fertile, but simply don't want to
have children?
What about couples who plan to adopt, or who have children from
previous marriages?
"Simplicity" is a poor reason for denying the institution of marriage
to same-sex couples... never mind the fact that childrearing is hardly
the only reason that couples marry.
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.
What about the simplicity of "Only couples composed of two consenting,
unrelated adults may marry"? It's only one sentence, and the words
"consenting" and "unrelated" can be further specified as "over the age
of maturity and of their own free will" and "{insert logical negation
of the legal definiton of incest here}", respectively.
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
You're the only one who seems to be hung up on the issue of children
knowing the identity of their biological parents.
And, if that's your only complaint, then are you OK with couples
adopting if they stay in contact with the child's biological parents?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 07:34:28 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Well then, why not require a fertility test before marriage? What could
be simpler than "Only fertile, mixed-sex couples can marry." ?
What do you do about couples who are fertile, but simply don't want to
have children?
What about couples who plan to adopt, or who have children from
previous marriages?
"Simplicity" is a poor reason for denying the institution of marriage
to same-sex couples... never mind the fact that childrearing is hardly
the only reason that couples marry.
Good grief, some of you people are simple. Procreation requires a man
and a woman. It's a biological thing. According to a longstanding social
norm, we ask that a couple get married before producing children, for
the children's sake. It's called a family, and is intended to last for
the life of the couple.
So why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to get married? Because they
cannot reproduce without outside, artificial means. This means that one
parent will not be related to the child. In some cases neither will.
This would be a SYSTEM in which we PLAN to have illegitimate children,
and to hell with their knowing who their real parents are.
What about the simplicity of "Only couples composed of two consenting,
unrelated adults may marry"? It's only one sentence, and the words
"consenting" and "unrelated" can be further specified as "over the age
of maturity and of their own free will" and "{insert logical negation
of the legal definiton of incest here}", respectively.
Consenting to what, exactly?
And why the conditions? Do you have some limits?
You're the only one who seems to be hung up on the issue of children
knowing the identity of their biological parents.
And, if that's your only complaint, then are you OK with couples
adopting if they stay in contact with the child's biological parents?
Adoption is not the point of this discussion.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 07:18:53 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oYKUe.24767$4i6.5307@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Well then, why not require a fertility test before marriage? What could
be simpler than "Only fertile, mixed-sex couples can marry." ?
What do you do about couples who are fertile, but simply don't want to
have children?
What about couples who plan to adopt, or who have children from
previous marriages?
"Simplicity" is a poor reason for denying the institution of marriage
to same-sex couples... never mind the fact that childrearing is hardly
the only reason that couples marry.
Good grief, some of you people are simple. Procreation requires a man and
a woman. It's a biological thing. According to a longstanding social norm,
we ask that a couple get married before producing children, for the
children's sake. It's called a family, and is intended to last for the
life of the couple.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 04:27:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:18:53 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oYKUe.24767$4i6.5307@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Well then, why not require a fertility test before marriage? What could
be simpler than "Only fertile, mixed-sex couples can marry." ?
What do you do about couples who are fertile, but simply don't want to
have children?
What about couples who plan to adopt, or who have children from
previous marriages?
"Simplicity" is a poor reason for denying the institution of marriage
to same-sex couples... never mind the fact that childrearing is hardly
the only reason that couples marry.
Good grief, some of you people are simple. Procreation requires a man and
a woman. It's a biological thing. According to a longstanding social norm,
we ask that a couple get married before producing children, for the
children's sake. It's called a family, and is intended to last for the
life of the couple.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
Robyn, you really must forgive the braindead simpleton with delusions
of adequacy.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 08:35:33 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:mopji1lkqmtsastvfhmfg6m7ogb0du48j2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:18:53 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oYKUe.24767$4i6.5307@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
snip
Good grief, some of you people are simple. Procreation requires a man
and
a woman. It's a biological thing. According to a longstanding social
norm,
we ask that a couple get married before producing children, for the
children's sake. It's called a family, and is intended to last for the
life of the couple.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
Robyn, you really must forgive the braindead simpleton with delusions
of adequacy.
Good grief, I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of this guy (pardon
the pun). Seems like he's run off though <shrugs>
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 04:02:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:35:33 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:mopji1lkqmtsastvfhmfg6m7ogb0du48j2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:18:53 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oYKUe.24767$4i6.5307@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
snip
Good grief, some of you people are simple. Procreation requires a man
and
a woman. It's a biological thing. According to a longstanding social
norm,
we ask that a couple get married before producing children, for the
children's sake. It's called a family, and is intended to last for the
life of the couple.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
Robyn, you really must forgive the braindead simpleton with delusions
of adequacy.
Good grief, I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of this guy (pardon
the pun). Seems like he's run off though <shrugs>
Hope so, too many damned trolls as it is.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 12:11:33 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Well then, why not require a fertility test before marriage? What could
be simpler than "Only fertile, mixed-sex couples can marry." ?
What do you do about couples who are fertile, but simply don't want to
have children?
What about couples who plan to adopt, or who have children from
previous marriages?
"Simplicity" is a poor reason for denying the institution of marriage
to same-sex couples... never mind the fact that childrearing is hardly
the only reason that couples marry.
Good grief, some of you people are simple.
Insulting me won't strengthen your argument.
Procreation requires a man and a woman. It's a biological thing.
Procreation requires a sperm and egg meet such that the egg becomes
fertilized, then that egg needs to spend nine months or so in the right
environment. There are many ways of achieving this besides the usual
one.
In any case, procreation is not the only reason people marry.
According to a longstanding social norm, we ask that a couple get married
before producing children, for the children's sake.
Norms change. Children have been are are born into familes that don't
consist of the biological parents. Those children grow up and have
lives that are just fine.
It's called a family, and is intended to last for the life of the couple.
There are many kinds of families, and that "for the life of the couple"
part isn't working out so well.
So why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to get married?
That's my question, all right...
Because they cannot reproduce without outside, artificial means.
How many times will I need to repeat this?
A. Marriage has many purposes, including providing an environment for
procreation.
B. Procreation can and does happen in environments other than those in
which both of the biological parents are present.
C. Same-sex couples do *all* of the things that mixed-sex couples do,
including *raise children.* While they can't combine their genetic
material to produce offspring, many mixed-sex couples can't either, or
choose not to, yet they may marry.
D. In the case of a Lesbian couple, one of the partners can contribute
her genetic material, and give birth to her child.
This means that one parent will not be related to the child. In some
cases neither will.
True, and irrelevant.
This would be a SYSTEM in which we PLAN to have illegitimate children,
and to hell with their knowing who their real parents are.
Adopted children are illegitimate? Children of previous marriages are
illegitimate? Children produced via artificial insemination are
illegitimate? Adopted children are in hell?
What about the simplicity of "Only couples composed of two consenting,
unrelated adults may marry"? It's only one sentence, and the words
"consenting" and "unrelated" can be further specified as "over the age
of maturity and of their own free will" and "{insert logical negation
of the legal definiton of incest here}", respectively.
Consenting to what, exactly?
Consenting to be married. Capable of taking up the economic and social
responsibilities of marriage. Freely choosing to marry.
And why the conditions? Do you have some limits?
Marriage carries with it certain obligations and responsibilities.
Legally speaking, marriage is a form of legally binding contract. For
such a contract to be binding, it must be entered into without duress.
It is presumed that children below the age of maturity (whatever that
may be in a particular State) are not able to give consent, and freely
enter into such a binding relationship.
As for the "unrelated" part, I was trying to keep things simple, and go
along with current laws concerning marriage and incest.
You're the only one who seems to be hung up on the issue of children
knowing the identity of their biological parents.
And, if that's your only complaint, then are you OK with couples
adopting if they stay in contact with the child's biological parents?
Adoption is not the point of this discussion.
Since same-sex couples can't produce their offspring, it is logical to
assume that at least some of those couples who wish to raise children
will do so via adoption.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:42:57 AM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Procreation requires a sperm and egg meet such that the egg becomes
fertilized, then that egg needs to spend nine months or so in the right
environment. There are many ways of achieving this besides the usual
one.
Are you in favor of any method of producing babies that works? Any moral
limits whatsoever?
In any case, procreation is not the only reason people marry.
True enough; marriage doesn't require procreation, but procreation does
require marriage.
Norms change. Children have been are are born into familes that don't
consist of the biological parents. Those children grow up and have
lives that are just fine.
So how or why did the concept of marriage ever get off the ground? CAn
you reverse your thinking and imagine a reason FOR marriage?
There are many kinds of families, and that "for the life of the couple"
part isn't working out so well.
So might as well give up on it, right?
How many times will I need to repeat this?
A. Marriage has many purposes, including providing an environment for
procreation.
B. Procreation can and does happen in environments other than those in
which both of the biological parents are present.
C. Same-sex couples do *all* of the things that mixed-sex couples do,
including *raise children.* While they can't combine their genetic
material to produce offspring, many mixed-sex couples can't either, or
choose not to, yet they may marry.
D. In the case of a Lesbian couple, one of the partners can contribute
her genetic material, and give birth to her child.
So can single women, "polyamorous" (polygamous) families, and surrogate
mothers. The question is not whether these things can be done; it is
what do we want to be the system? And what do we base our decision on?
Tax returns? Inheritance laws?
Or the children?
Adopted children are illegitimate? Children of previous marriages are
illegitimate? Children produced via artificial insemination are
illegitimate? Adopted children are in hell?
Perhaps I can short-circuit these questions by just defining legitimacy.
It means simply that a child is conceived by and born to a married couple.
Marriage carries with it certain obligations and responsibilities.
Legally speaking, marriage is a form of legally binding contract. For
such a contract to be binding, it must be entered into without duress.
It is presumed that children below the age of maturity (whatever that
may be in a particular State) are not able to give consent, and freely
enter into such a binding relationship.
As for the "unrelated" part, I was trying to keep things simple, and go
along with current laws concerning marriage and incest.
But why go along with such archaic rules? What is wrong with incest?
Perhaps you do have some limits, some moral values. I hope it is based
on the needs of the children, not the adults who have control over how
they procreate.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 01:14:21 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5gYUe.25206$4i6.22123@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Procreation requires a sperm and egg meet such that the egg becomes
fertilized, then that egg needs to spend nine months or so in the right
environment. There are many ways of achieving this besides the usual
one.
Are you in favor of any method of producing babies that works? Any moral
limits whatsoever?
In any case, procreation is not the only reason people marry.
True enough; marriage doesn't require procreation, but procreation does
require marriage.
Oh *****. I'm living proof that marriage isn't required.
--
------
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 03:39:54 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
Oh *****. I'm living proof that marriage isn't required.
I don't think you are getting the point of this discussion. We are
talking about desired systems, how things should work. It is a
theoretical discussion of ethics of reproduction and how to best form
the family structure. The fact that you were born out of wedlock does
not mean that everyone should be, or that that is the desired plan.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 07:27:32 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uC0Ve.26140$4i6.14008@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Oh *****. I'm living proof that marriage isn't required.
I don't think you are getting the point of this discussion. We are talking
about desired systems, how things should work.
No, that's what YOU'RE talking about. Are you new to Usenet?
It is a
theoretical discussion of ethics of reproduction and how to best form the
family structure.
You mean how YOU want the family structure to me.
The fact that you were born out of wedlock does not mean that everyone
should be, or that that is the desired plan.
What's your point? I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to make the
rules.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 04:30:33 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
Oh *****. I'm living proof that marriage isn't required.
I don't think you are getting the point of this discussion. We are
talking about desired systems, how things should work. It is a
theoretical discussion of ethics of reproduction and how to best form
the family structure. The fact that you were born out of wedlock does
not mean that everyone should be, or that that is the desired plan.
"Should" is irrelevant. "Is" is.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
