| 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: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:15:18 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
Marriage is about a partnership. Children are optional.
That's the attitude that got me into this discussion. "Marriage is all
about ME. ***** the children." They are incidental to this whole thing.
Gary Eickmeier
Whether you like it or not, one can have children and not be married,
and one can be married and not have children. The institution of
marriage in this country is completely independent of the presence or
absence of children.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:14:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:36:41 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
Marriage is about a partnership. Children are optional.
That's the attitude that got me into this discussion. "Marriage is all
about ME. ***** the children." They are incidental to this whole thing.
Except that nobody said any such thing. No matter how one feels about
children, the law does not require having children or even being
capable of having them in order to be married. Your definition is not
the legal definition; it is your opinion only, and marriage is a legal
institution that exists as defined by the law.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:05:35 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
Except that nobody said any such thing. No matter how one feels about
children, the law does not require having children or even being
capable of having them in order to be married. Your definition is not
the legal definition; it is your opinion only, and marriage is a legal
institution that exists as defined by the law.
Might not hurt to try once again.
No, the law doesn't require you to have children in order to be married.
Our culture, however, does request that you be married to have children.
Please don't lecture me on how it is possible to have children outside
of marriage, or that many married couples are infertile, or that many
people adopt, or that we can get children with a few basters and
volunteer bodies.
The desired system is for the children to be born within the structure
of marriage. Under this system, the children will be born to their
natural mother and father, and will be raised by them. This is the
desired standard, or norm. It is a choice that we (society in general)
make, and it is done for the benefit of the children, not the adults
involved.
I started all this (discussion) to counter the arguments of the
religious people who try to say that our definition of marriage is based
on the bible, or the will of God, or anything other than common sense
and societal betterment. I do believe that homosexuality is something
that happens to a small percentage of us, some sort of switch that gets
thrown in the brain, and not a choice consciously made. I do not believe
that it is "an abomination" as stated by the religiosos.
Gays are free to love whomever they wish, but such relationships should
not be elevated or equated to marriage, which is for opposite sex
couples only in this society, for reasons as stated above.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:52:19 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Except that nobody said any such thing. No matter how one feels about
children, the law does not require having children or even being
capable of having them in order to be married. Your definition is not
the legal definition; it is your opinion only, and marriage is a legal
institution that exists as defined by the law.
Might not hurt to try once again.
No, the law doesn't require you to have children in order to be married.
Our culture, however, does request that you be married to have children.
Request, but not demand by force of law or otherwise.
Please don't lecture me on how it is possible to have children outside
of marriage, or that many married couples are infertile, or that many
people adopt, or that we can get children with a few basters and
volunteer bodies.
Then you accept all this as being true?
The desired system is for the children to be born within the structure
of marriage. Under this system, the children will be born to their
natural mother and father, and will be raised by them. This is the
desired standard, or norm. It is a choice that we (society in general)
make, and it is done for the benefit of the children, not the adults
involved.
Yes, and like many other social norms, it is not compelled by force of
law. Many children are adopted (and we have a whole body of law in
place to facilitate that), and many are produced via artificial
insemination, egg donation, surrogates, etc. It's all perfectly legal,
and, with a few exceptions, socially acceptable. No one raises an
eyebrow at a "test tube baby" anymore.
I started all this (discussion) to counter the arguments of the
religious people who try to say that our definition of marriage is based
on the bible, or the will of God, or anything other than common sense
and societal betterment.
OK...
I do believe that homosexuality is something that happens to a small
percentage of us, some sort of switch that gets
thrown in the brain, and not a choice consciously made. I do not believe
that it is "an abomination" as stated by the religiosos.
OK...
Gays are free to love whomever they wish, but such relationships should
not be elevated or equated to marriage, which is for opposite sex
couples only in this society, for reasons as stated above.
Why shouldn't they be able to marry? You've expressed concern about
"illegitimate" (as you defined it) children, but never explicitly
stated why illegitimate children were undesirable, aside from vague
references to their not knowing their biological parents. Also, the
"marriage must remain one man, one woman so as to encourage the
production of children" argument doesn't get much traction in today's
world... there's no shortage of children in need of parents.
By the way, same sex marriage is quite legal in the state of
Massachusetts, and in several other countries. So far as I've heard,
they've suffered no ill effects as a result.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 03:10:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:05:35 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Except that nobody said any such thing. No matter how one feels about
children, the law does not require having children or even being
capable of having them in order to be married. Your definition is not
the legal definition; it is your opinion only, and marriage is a legal
institution that exists as defined by the law.
Might not hurt to try once again.
No, the law doesn't require you to have children in order to be married.
Our culture, however, does request that you be married to have children.
In other words you agree that marriage is not about having children.
Good, that is settled.
Please don't lecture me on how it is possible to have children outside
of marriage, or that many married couples are infertile,
Shouldn't they be illegal too?
or that many
people adopt, or that we can get children with a few basters and
volunteer bodies.
Yes, I understand that you do not like to pay attention to facts that
make your argument look silly.
The desired system is for the children to be born within the structure
of marriage. Under this system, the children will be born to their
natural mother and father, and will be raised by them. This is the
desired standard, or norm. It is a choice that we (society in general)
make, and it is done for the benefit of the children, not the adults
involved.
All of the above is your opinion. It may be right or not. The point
is that marriage is not about having children.
I started all this (discussion) to counter the arguments of the
religious people who try to say that our definition of marriage is based
on the bible, or the will of God, or anything other than common sense
and societal betterment.
You still miss the point that it is not based on anything but what the
law says.
I do believe that homosexuality is something
that happens to a small percentage of us, some sort of switch that gets
thrown in the brain, and not a choice consciously made. I do not believe
that it is "an abomination" as stated by the religiosos.
Gays are free to love whomever they wish, but such relationships should
not be elevated or equated to marriage, which is for opposite sex
couples only in this society, for reasons as stated above.
You still insist that your opinion is equal to the law. The law
defines marriage. It says absolutely nothing about children. I also
notice that you still have not mentioned any opposition to childless
heterosexual couples marrying or to the use artificial insemination by
those couples or to adoption by those couples.
You are basing your entire argument on what you think marriage should
be not on what it is in fact, and you refuse to address that problem
when it is pointed out.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 07:51:47 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:36:41 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
Marriage is about a partnership. Children are optional.
That's the attitude that got me into this discussion. "Marriage is all
about ME. ***** the children." They are incidental to this whole thing.
No, this is all about US. Me and my wife. We are physically
incapable of having children.
Gary, you have yet to answer my question.. are you married?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:00:43 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:6fepi15f77ootrve8opv1rbmg9lierf7g1@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:36:41 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
Marriage is about a partnership. Children are optional.
That's the attitude that got me into this discussion. "Marriage is all
about ME. ***** the children." They are incidental to this whole thing.
No, this is all about US. Me and my wife. We are physically
incapable of having children.
Gary, you have yet to answer my question.. are you married?
He is. Age 61 and has a 7 year old.
--
------
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 |
18 Sep 2005 11:39:05 AM |
|
|
In <3p3shjF8hsr3U2@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:6fepi15f77ootrve8opv1rbmg9lierf7g1@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:36:41 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
Marriage is about a partnership. Children are optional.
That's the attitude that got me into this discussion. "Marriage is all
about ME. ***** the children." They are incidental to this whole thing.
No, this is all about US. Me and my wife. We are physically incapable
of having children.
Gary, you have yet to answer my question.. are you married?
He is. Age 61 and has a 7 year old.
A 7 year old what?
--
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: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:08:33 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:3aOdnR_lw5W3BbDeRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In <3p3shjF8hsr3U2@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:6fepi15f77ootrve8opv1rbmg9lierf7g1@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:36:41 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
Marriage is about a partnership. Children are optional.
That's the attitude that got me into this discussion. "Marriage is all
about ME. ***** the children." They are incidental to this whole thing.
No, this is all about US. Me and my wife. We are physically incapable
of having children.
Gary, you have yet to answer my question.. are you married?
He is. Age 61 and has a 7 year old.
A 7 year old what?
Girl, I believe. The poor thing, having a bigot for a father. Oh well :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1899 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 01:22:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:39:05 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <3p3shjF8hsr3U2@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:6fepi15f77ootrve8opv1rbmg9lierf7g1@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
23:36:41 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
Marriage is about a partnership. Children are optional.
That's the attitude that got me into this discussion. "Marriage is all
about ME. ***** the children." They are incidental to this whole thing.
No, this is all about US. Me and my wife. We are physically incapable
of having children.
Gary, you have yet to answer my question.. are you married?
He is. Age 61 and has a 7 year old.
A 7 year old what?
Well, you know that they say about marriage.
Maybe it's a seven year old itch.
"'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: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 07:25:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:22:08 -0700, 1899 Dead
<zepp1899#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
Well, you know that they say about marriage.
We know what Greywolf Zepp Jamieson said about marriage... here it
is...
--
" I've been gender-confused all mylife. I fit neither stereotype.
Try as I will, I honestly cannot see any difference, other than
the obvious physical ones, between the sexes. I am cheerfully bi,
mated to one who is not, and quite happy that way."
--Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Nov 13 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/6a9927c474d797ba?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 10:20:31 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:44:08 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> posting the following on Fri, 16 Sep 2005
06:54:05 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Why? A right is a right, and any restriction on the right of two
consenting adults to marry violates the 14th Amendment.
<LOL> Total *****! These two consenting adults have a right to
engage in very nearly any kind of relationship they wish.... But
marriage is a societal sanction, whereby the society recognizes the
relationship and therefore decides what it is that they recognize. To
put it in words you can understand, society recognizes marriage as a
special club and society says you same sex couples cannot join.
The state cannot arbitrarily set up definitions and membership rules.
The definitions and rules are subject to examination under both 14th
Amendment Due Process (the "right to marry") and 14th Amendment Equal
Protection (a class of people being disfavored).
However, Douglas is not necessarily correct when he concludes that Due
Process demands that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. It is not
settled law that the "right to marry" is a fundamental right for
same-sex pairings even though it is settled law for opposite-sex
pairings.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:29:00 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:33:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:50:55 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:40:02 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Actually very relevant. The courts have held over and over that
"separate but equal" is not Constitutional, since they are inherently
unequal.
Totally irrelevant. We're not talking about anybody being separate
but equal.
You are the one who brought up "civil unions", not me. That's a
separate form of marriage.
<LOL> No it's not.. It would simply define a *legal* relationship
between two people.
So what is the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" if they
each carry the exact same rights, responsibilities, and benefits?
So, you support the laws that existed prior to Loving v Virginia?
After all, a black man had just the same right to marry someone of his
own race as a white man did...
Totally irrelevant. We're not talking about race.
No, but we are talking about marriage laws. Do you support the
freedom of adults to marry, or not?
sure, as long as the marriage follows the rules...
As was pointed out above, rules change.
Once upon at time, "the rules" said that a black person and a white
person couldn't marry. Those rules changed. You seem to object that the
rules change again, so that two consenting adults of the same gender
may marry. You seem to object to that idea. Do you find the change made
by Loving v Virginia to also be objectionable? Why or why not?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 10:04:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:30:26 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:57:02 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:12:51 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
...and the whole "gay marriage" agenda is really nothing more than an
attempt to force society to categorize homosexuality as normal. If
their agenda was really just an attempt to get the legal benefits of
marriage, they would be quite happy with a civil union.
Go read "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education." (SCOTUS, 1954) and then
humbly explain why "separate but equal" doesn't work.
Totally irrelevant.
Are gay Americans citizens or not?
Sure..
Answer that question. If they
are, then why aren't they protected by the 14th Amendment in your
view?
This is not an equal protection issue. A homosexual has the same
rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a person of the opposite sex of a
certain age, and the fact that they would rather marry the same sex is
no different than if they wanted to marry their pet poodle or their
ten year old sister. Marriage is something that a society sanctions
and therefore, society gets to decide the rules of that sanction.
Fine, then how about Loving v. Virginia? Not allowing black men to
marry white women is unconstitutional... and when that ruling was
handed down, 85% of Virginians were OPPOSED to that sort of unnatural
behavior.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 01:29:06 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:57:02 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:12:51 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
...and the whole "gay marriage" agenda is really nothing more than an
attempt to force society to categorize homosexuality as normal. If
their agenda was really just an attempt to get the legal benefits of
marriage, they would be quite happy with a civil union.
Go read "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education." (SCOTUS, 1954) and then
humbly explain why "separate but equal" doesn't work.
Totally irrelevant.
Are gay Americans citizens or not?
Sure..
Answer that question. If they
are, then why aren't they protected by the 14th Amendment in your
view?
This is not an equal protection issue. A homosexual has the same
rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a person of the opposite sex of a
certain age, and the fact that they would rather marry the same sex is
no different than if they wanted to marry their pet poodle or their
ten year old sister. Marriage is something that a society sanctions
and therefore, society gets to decide the rules of that sanction.
--
Steve
Our country has been through this before...
"A black person has the same rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a
person of the same race of a certain age, and the fact that they would
rather marry a person of a different race is no different than if they
wanted to marry their pet poodle or their ten year old sister. Marriage
is something that a society sanctions and therefore, society gets to
decide the rules of that sanction."
It's the *same exact argument*.
I'll bet you'd like to see "Straights Only" water fountains and lunch
counters, too.
Are we, as a nation, doomed to make the same stupid mistakes over and
over again?
Sometimes, I despair that the country I'm a citizen of will survive
another century, or that it even deserves to. I'm heartened that
attitudes like yours, nevermore, are seen as backward and ignorant by
modern generations, and that your way of thinking is being
unceremoniously dropped into the dustbin of history by recent
generations, along with the misogyny and racism of the past. Good
riddance to bad rubbish!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 06:58:28 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:57:02 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:12:51 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
...and the whole "gay marriage" agenda is really nothing more than an
attempt to force society to categorize homosexuality as normal. If
their agenda was really just an attempt to get the legal benefits of
marriage, they would be quite happy with a civil union.
Go read "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education." (SCOTUS, 1954) and then
humbly explain why "separate but equal" doesn't work.
Totally irrelevant.
Are gay Americans citizens or not?
Sure..
Answer that question. If they
are, then why aren't they protected by the 14th Amendment in your
view?
This is not an equal protection issue. A homosexual has the same
rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a person of the opposite sex of a
certain age, and the fact that they would rather marry the same sex is
no different than if they wanted to marry their pet poodle or their
ten year old sister. Marriage is something that a society sanctions
and therefore, society gets to decide the rules of that sanction.
--
Steve
Our country has been through this before...
"A black person has the same rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a
person of the same race of a certain age, and the fact that they would
rather marry a person of a different race is no different than if they
wanted to marry their pet poodle or their ten year old sister. Marriage
is something that a society sanctions and therefore, society gets to
decide the rules of that sanction."
It's the *same exact argument*.
I'll bet you'd like to see "Straights Only" water fountains and lunch
counters, too.
Are we, as a nation, doomed to make the same stupid mistakes over and
over again?
Sometimes, I despair that the country I'm a citizen of will survive
another century, or that it even deserves to. I'm heartened that
attitudes like yours, nevermore, are seen as backward and ignorant by
modern generations, and that your way of thinking is being
unceremoniously dropped into the dustbin of history by recent
generations, along with the misogyny and racism of the past. Good
riddance to bad rubbish!
I think there is fundamental difference between discrimination based on
race and one based on access to marriage benefits. When blacks were
discriminated it was obvious, skin color was uncorrectable, and known
to other people for centuries. This is not the case for the gay people,
because it is new movement, it is not obvious who is gay who is not, it
might be correctable also. So analogy with race discrimination does not
hold ground.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 07:25:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:57:02 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:12:51 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
...and the whole "gay marriage" agenda is really nothing more than an
attempt to force society to categorize homosexuality as normal. If
their agenda was really just an attempt to get the legal benefits of
marriage, they would be quite happy with a civil union.
Go read "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education." (SCOTUS, 1954) and then
humbly explain why "separate but equal" doesn't work.
Totally irrelevant.
Are gay Americans citizens or not?
Sure..
Answer that question. If they
are, then why aren't they protected by the 14th Amendment in your
view?
This is not an equal protection issue. A homosexual has the same
rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a person of the opposite sex of a
certain age, and the fact that they would rather marry the same sex is
no different than if they wanted to marry their pet poodle or their
ten year old sister. Marriage is something that a society sanctions
and therefore, society gets to decide the rules of that sanction.
--
Steve
Our country has been through this before...
"A black person has the same rights as I do, IOW, they can marry a
person of the same race of a certain age, and the fact that they would
rather marry a person of a different race is no different than if they
wanted to marry their pet poodle or their ten year old sister. Marriage
is something that a society sanctions and therefore, society gets to
decide the rules of that sanction."
It's the *same exact argument*.
I'll bet you'd like to see "Straights Only" water fountains and lunch
counters, too.
Are we, as a nation, doomed to make the same stupid mistakes over and
over again?
Sometimes, I despair that the country I'm a citizen of will survive
another century, or that it even deserves to. I'm heartened that
attitudes like yours, nevermore, are seen as backward and ignorant by
modern generations, and that your way of thinking is being
unceremoniously dropped into the dustbin of history by recent
generations, along with the misogyny and racism of the past. Good
riddance to bad rubbish!
I think there is fundamental difference between discrimination based on
race and one based on access to marriage benefits.
No, whether we deny access to the institution of marriage based on race
or sexual orientation, we are still denying access because of perceived
membership in a group rather than some demonstrated social harm. We
deny access to the institution of marriage to minors because of the
potential for harm, and because marriage, legally speaking, is a
contract, one which minors are presumed to be unqualifed to enter.
When blacks were discriminated it was obvious, skin color was
uncorrectable, and known to other people for centuries.
You use an odd turn of phrase... "uncorrectable"? Do you think skin
color, or sexual orientation for that matter, are characteristics in
need of correction?
This is not the case for the gay people, because it is new movement, ...
People have exhibited romantic and/or sexual attraction to members of
the same gender throughout history. Nothing new, here...
it is not obvious who is gay who is not,
No, it isn't obvious... you have to ask. Point?
it might be correctable also.
See above.
So analogy with race discrimination does not hold ground.
Nothing you've said here supports this statement in anything
approaching a rigorous, or even persuasive manner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 10:30:42 PM |
|
|
No, whether we deny access to the institution of marriage based on race
or sexual orientation,
I was talking about analogy between race discrimination and sexual
preference discrimination.
Race is something that person inherited, that cannot be corrected
unlike sexual preference. Race and not a life style, so discrimination
against gay people is relative not absolute.
Do you think skin
color, or sexual orientation for that matter, are characteristics in
need of correction?
no I said that you cannot correct color of skin, but you can correct
behavior, since homosexuality is a behavior. That is fundamental
difference between race discrimination and discrimination based on
sexual preference.
People have exhibited romantic and/or sexual attraction to members of
the same gender throughout history. Nothing new, here...
Yes it is new, in human history, gay people have never demanded to
change definition of marriage, it happened only recently when marriage
was declared (by gays) as discriminatory institution. So why all people
should trust gays.
it is not obvious who is gay who is not,
No, it isn't obvious... you have to ask. Point?
If it is not obvious it cannot be compared with race, Race is obvious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 12:17:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
No, whether we deny access to the institution of marriage based on race
or sexual orientation,
I was talking about analogy between race discrimination and sexual
preference discrimination.
Race is something that person inherited, that cannot be corrected
unlike sexual preference.
Again with this talk of "correction"... what's up with that?
Race and not a life style, so discrimination against gay people is relative
not absolute.
Absurd... it's still discrimination. Sexual orientation is no more a
"lifestyle" than being left-handed.
Do you think skin
color, or sexual orientation for that matter, are characteristics in
need of correction?
no I said that you cannot correct color of skin, but you can correct
behavior,
What makes you think that homosexuality is something that needs
"correction" ? Dude, you have issues.
since homosexuality is a behavior. That is fundamental difference between
race discrimination and discrimination based on sexual preference.
You'll have to find some other way to dress up homophobia in pretty
words. Homosexuality is a term for sexual orientation towards one's own
gender. It is not, in and of itself, a behavior. A gay man could remain
celibate his whole life, and still be gay. A straight man could have
sex with a man, and still be straight. Orientation and behavior are two
different things.
People have exhibited romantic and/or sexual attraction to members of
the same gender throughout history. Nothing new, here...
Yes it is new, in human history, gay people have never demanded to
change definition of marriage, it happened only recently when marriage
was declared (by gays) as discriminatory institution. So why all people
should trust gays.
"Trust" ?!? Again with the issues.
Homosexuality isn't new. Homosexual relationships have been recognized
in other cultures, up to and including marriage. Other countries
(Canada, Spain, The Netherlands) recognize same-sex marriage today.
Officially. Legally.
Objecting because contemporary homosexuals want to marry makes as much
sense as objecting to black men and women of the '50s asking for equal
rights.
Btw, I, a straight man, object to this discrimination against same-sex
couples. One can call for justice for others besides oneself.
it is not obvious who is gay who is not,
No, it isn't obvious... you have to ask. Point?
If it is not obvious it cannot be compared with race, Race is obvious.
Your ability to detect sexual orientation is irrelevant. Rights aren't
a matter of easy identification.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 09:09:11 AM |
|
|
When I was talikng about correction, I did not mean that we have to
correct anything. My point was that we cannot compare discrimination
based on race and discrimination based on sexual preference. Rememeber
comparison of Apples and Oranges. Race cannot be corrected to conform
to the rules of society, but sexual preference can, and yo confirmed
that saying
"A gay man could remain celibate his whole life, and still be gay.
that means it is not obvious, so at least it is questionable. And
again I agree that Homosexuality is not new, but what is NEW is that
those people that have uncommon sexual preference, want to destroy
traditional institution of marriage because it is descriminatory,
although for centuries it has never been known as unfair or
discriminatory. Please get the point, Blacks was fighting for thier
equality against bad discriminatory laws, Gays fight against good law,
i.e. against legitimate institution, that has existed for centuries and
has been apporoved by all people (including gay people).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 10:42:37 AM |
|
|
wrote:
When I was talikng about correction, I did not mean that we have to
correct anything. My point was that we cannot compare discrimination
based on race and discrimination based on sexual preference. Rememeber
comparison of Apples and Oranges.
We can keep playing the "Yes it is!", "No it isn't!" game, but that
strikes me as being unproductive.
My view is that discrimination on the basis of sex and discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation are comparable, because they both
involve discriminating against someone based on their perceived group
membership rather than on an individual's actions or characteristics.
Discrimination on the basis of hair color, eye color, handedness,
ethnic origin, or religious belief are likewise comparable.
I get that you disagree. Let's agree to disagree on this point, OK?
Race cannot be corrected to conform to the rules of society,
but sexual preference can, and
Yes, you can demand that a gay man "act straight", but I don't see that
you have any right to. Why should he? Is he likewise justified in
demanding that you "act gay"? Since when is my private sexual practice,
or my choice of partners a matter of society approving, so long as only
consenting adults are involved?
yo confirmed that saying
"A gay man could remain celibate his whole life, and still be gay.
that means it is not obvious, so at least it is questionable.
So, what, gays are ok so long as they "stay in the closet"? What the
hell does "being obvious" have to do with it?
And again I agree that Homosexuality is not new, but what is NEW is that
those people that have uncommon sexual preference,
Yes, their sexual preference is uncommon. So?
want to destroy traditional institution of marriage because it is descriminatory,
Please explain to me how allowing two men to marry affects my marriage
in any way, or "destroys the institution". What bunk! Adding a group
who wish to marry, and commit themselves to each other, even in the
face of societal disapproval, destroys the institution? If anything,
same-sex marriage strengthens the institution.
although for centuries it has never been known as unfair or discriminatory.
For centuries, slavery had "never been known as unfair or
discriminatory". For centuries, the concept of woman as property had
"never been known as unfair or discriminatory."
Times change. Societies change. We don't burn witches at the stake any
more, either.
Please get the point, Blacks was fighting for thier
equality against bad discriminatory laws, Gays fight against good law,
i.e. against legitimate institution, that has existed for centuries and
has been apporoved by all people (including gay people).
*****. I get the point you're trying to make, and happen to think
you are wrong. Discrimination does not magically become "good law" just
because you aren't the one being discriminated against. And I, a
straight man, damn well *don't* approve of homosexuals being
discriminated against, and I consider barring them from the institution
of marriage to be discrimination as vile as barring mixed-race couples
from marrying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 12:38:10 PM |
|
|
Please explain to me how allowing two men to marry affects my marriage
in any way, or "destroys the institution". What bunk! Adding a group
who wish to marry, and commit themselves to each other, even in the
face of societal disapproval, destroys the institution? If anything, same-sex marriage strengthens the institution.
Well it looks like a right statement, but it is not. You have to take
into account that marriage is not only have definition but it has a
structure, (skeleton). When people get married one person (a man) turn
into a husband, and another (woman) become a wife. By changing
definition of marriage you are destroying basic right of people, to be
a husband or wife. As you know husband and wife are roles that we have
a right to have, so when you changing definition of marriage you are
basically violating human rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 01:26:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Please explain to me how allowing two men to marry affects my marriage
in any way, or "destroys the institution". What bunk! Adding a group
who wish to marry, and commit themselves to each other, even in the
face of societal disapproval, destroys the institution? If anything, same-sex marriage strengthens the institution.
Well it looks like a right statement, but it is not.
You've made the assertion... let's see if you can support it.
You have to take into account that marriage is not only have definition
but it has a structure, (skeleton). When people get married one person
(a man) turn into a husband, and another (woman) become a wife.
Since I *am* married, I'm well aware of what it entails. Two adults
join their lives together. I'm still not seeing a problem with same-sex
marriage. My marriage doesn't change. No one's marriage changes. What
changes is that the institution gets "new blood" in the form of
committed couples who, incidentally, happen to be of the same gender.
By changing definition of marriage you are destroying basic right of
people, to be a husband or wife.
Rubbish. I don't stop being a husband because some other couple has two
males or two females in it. If one male calls themselves "husband", and
the other male calls themselves "wife", would that make you happy? I
suspect not.
As you know husband and wife are roles that we have a right to have
So? Who is demanding that your roles change? I'm not. The roles within
my marriage are whatever my wife and I want them to be. The same goes
for everyone else's marriage. I don't need someone else to tell me what
*my* role is in *my* marriage.
a right to have, so when you changing definition of marriage you are
basically violating human rights.
That is some mighty incoherent thinking. So, because *you* can't manage
to figure out the roles in *your* marriage between you and your partner
without outside society preventing some *other* couple from marrying,
your *rights* are being *violated*?!?! Who are you trying to kid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:05:09 AM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Since I *am* married, I'm well aware of what it entails. Two adults
join their lives together. I'm still not seeing a problem with same-sex
marriage. My marriage doesn't change. No one's marriage changes.
Yes of course it does. Instead of being husband and wife, you are now
just "two adults." What the hell. "Hi everybody - I'd like you to meet
my other adult."
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 01:56:12 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V8XWe.59332$4i6.5035@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Since I *am* married, I'm well aware of what it entails. Two adults
join their lives together. I'm still not seeing a problem with same-sex
marriage. My marriage doesn't change. No one's marriage changes.
Yes of course it does. Instead of being husband and wife, you are now just
"two adults." What the hell. "Hi everybody - I'd like you to meet my other
adult."
So? What's the problem?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 02:13:00 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Since I *am* married, I'm well aware of what it entails. Two
adults join their lives together. I'm still not seeing a
problem with same-sex marriage. My marriage doesn't change. No
one's marriage changes.
Yes of course it does. Instead of being husband and wife, you
are now just "two adults." What the hell. "Hi everybody - I'd
like you to meet my other adult."
Gary Eickmeier
Basically, since the 60's large numbers of people have lived
together without the benefit of marriage, and oddly enough, long
term co-habitation seems more stable than marriages.
--
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 11:43:40 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Since I *am* married, I'm well aware of what it entails. Two adults
join their lives together. I'm still not seeing a problem with same-sex
marriage. My marriage doesn't change. No one's marriage changes.
Yes of course it does. Instead of being husband and wife, you are now
just "two adults." What the hell. "Hi everybody - I'd like you to meet
my other adult."
Now you're just babbling. Same-sex couples are getting married. Right
now. Today. And yet, miraculously, my wife still refers to me as "her
husband", and I still refer to her as "my wife".
Nothing. Changed.
Why the cherade, Gary? You've already made it clear that you think gays
are icky, and you don't want them to join the "marriage club"? Why try
to make up nonsense like "But, who'll be the husband?!?!?"
Your cover's blown. Accept it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:05:09 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Since I *am* married, I'm well aware of what it entails. Two adults
join their lives together. I'm still not seeing a problem with same-sex
marriage. My marriage doesn't change. No one's marriage changes.
Yes of course it does. Instead of being husband and wife, you are now
just "two adults." What the hell. "Hi everybody - I'd like you to meet
my other adult."
Are you under the delusion that there will be some kind of law
forbidding people using the terms "husband" and "wife"?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 12:03:10 PM |
|
|
Michael, I respect your view, I only wanted to point out that your view
has no scientific ground. Race and homosexuality are different things,
race is a physical attribute of human being, and homosexuality is a
behavioral attribute. That is a fundamental difference. You can't
demand changes in basic definitions accepted by society, because your
behavior is different from other people. It is the same thing as if
you would force to change baseball rules so football players could play
on the same stadium.
For centuries, slavery had "never been known as unfair or discriminatory". For centuries, the concept of woman as property had "never been known as unfair or discriminatory."
This is simply not true, because along with slave-owners there were
slaves who were rising in rebellion against their owners. In case of
the marriage there were no revolts or strong opposition neither to
marriage nor definition of marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 01:18:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Michael, I respect your view, I only wanted to point out that your view
has no scientific ground.
Oh? Please, share with us this "scientific ground" of which you
speak...
Race and homosexuality are different things,
Um, yes.
race is a physical attribute of human being,
and homosexuality is a behavioral attribute. That is a fundamental difference.
So, is left-handedness a physical attribute or a behavioral attribute?
How about perfect pitch? After all, we can demand that those who are
left-handed write with their right hands, or those with perfect pitch
sing off-key occasionally.
That is *exactly* the way I view your demand that gay people "act
straight."
You can't demand changes in basic definitions accepted by society,
I can demand that I be allowed to behave however I wish, so long as I
don't endanger others.
And, AGAIN, sexual orientation is not just about behavior! I'm
attracted to women, but not to men. If I had remained celibate my
entire life, that attraction would remain. If I had sex with a man, I
am likewise confident that that attraction would remain.
Orientation shapes behavior, but sexual orientation is not identical to
behavior. You can demand that gay people "act straight", but that won't
*make* them straight.
Do you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree?
because your behavior is different from other people.
"You can't demand that white people use the same lunch counters as
black people. After all, you can't demand changes in basic definitions
accepted by society."
Note the parallel.
It is the same thing as if you would force to change baseball rules so
football players could play on the same stadium.
That is one weak analogy. By that "reasoning", no law could ever be
changed unless the majority accepted the change, and that would have
prevented civil rights legislation from passing.
We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic. The majority does not
get to use its majority status to run roughshod over a minority.
For centuries, slavery had "never been known as unfair or discriminatory". For centuries, the concept of woman as property had "never been known as unfair or discriminatory."
This is simply not true, because along with slave-owners there were
slaves who were rising in rebellion against their owners.
You mean like gay people rising in rebellion over their second-class
status?
In case of the marriage there were no revolts or strong opposition neither to
marriage nor definition of marriage.
So, gays can't object to the state of marriage because they didn't
start objecting early enough? You call that an argument?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
