| 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: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 10:22:44 AM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2005 11:18:47 -0700, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com>
wrote:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
You mean like gay people rising in rebellion over their second-class
status?
Stonewall riot?
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?
HE does.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 01:52:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
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.
If you think sexual orientation is any less immutable than native
language (essentially immutable with very few exceptions), you have
commited an act of sodomy.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 02:17:35 PM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2005 10:03:10 -0700, wrote:
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.
So.. is Left-handedness a physical or behavioral attribute in your
scientific mind?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 03:32:59 PM |
|
|
You mean like gay people rising in rebellion over their second-class
status?
You are trying to divert my point; I said rebellion against marriage as
discriminatory institution.
So, gays can't object to the state of marriage because they didn't
start objecting early enough? You call that an argument?
It is not argument against anything; I said it is new thing to the
society, so you can't compare race discrimination and discrimination
based on
Guys, when I say behavioral, it means cannot be impartially tested,
skin color is testable, left-handedness is testable, and race is
testable. Love is not testable as well as either homosexual or
heterosexual attraction. I am talking about that on behalf of the
science, if you prefer disregard science it is your constitutional
right. I am not trying to convince anyone.
Yes homosexuality is congenital aberration of behavior same as other
psychological irregularities and no one can do anything about it, the
term sexual preference means that man prefer man or woman prefer woman
for sexual gratification.
Yes you can compare religion and homosexual preference if you want,
although it is quite offensive. But remember, that religious leaders
don't go to court and ask to change definition of basic and
fundamental concepts.
People who were married before will continue to be married.
Nothing will be destroyed.
That is only your opinion, not supported by the facts, when I say you
destroying marriage that means you tear down definition and structure,
I explained earlier, marriage is an contract between wife and husband,
when couple wants to marry, man wants to be a husband and woman wants
to be a wife, it is very simple. That is exactly the main reason why
people want to marry, because everything else achievable without the
marriage, kids, love, whatever. And government provide us an instrument
called marriage - i.e. documented assurance that men will be a
husband and women a wife. Now by changing definition of marriage you
change everything. You offer me to be a sexless Party A or Party B.
That is totally different venture, and it might require changing my
attitude about marriage. Why should I marry if it is not marriage,
take all benefit you want but give me something then that would fit my
understanding of marriage, I think I have right, that supported by
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 03:57:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Yes homosexuality is congenital aberration of behavior same as other
psychological irregularities and no one can do anything about it
Aberration? Irregularity? Do I sense your problem with same-sex
marriage is because you have a problem with homosexuality?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 05:18:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You mean like gay people rising in rebellion over their second-class
status?
You are trying to divert my point; I said rebellion against marriage as
discriminatory institution.
They aren't protesting *against* the institution of marriage, but
rather *for* inclusion in it. They don't want to destroy it, they want
to join it!
So, gays can't object to the state of marriage because they didn't
start objecting early enough? You call that an argument?
It is not argument against anything; I said it is new thing to the
society, so you can't compare race discrimination and discrimination
based on
Why not? What does it matter if it is "new" or not?
Guys, when I say behavioral, it means cannot be impartially tested,
skin color is testable, left-handedness is testable, and race is
testable.
Not that "testability" makes a damned bit of difference, but, if you
*did* want to test for sexual orientation, you could show a person
pictures of males and females and not any physiological changes between
their reactions to the two.
So yes, *orientation* is testable.
Love is not testable as well as either homosexual or
heterosexual attraction.
See above.
I am talking about that on behalf of the science,
You have yet to mention any science. You complained about a lack of
testability (without having established that testability is a
requirement), and you even got *that* wrong.
if you prefer disregard science it is your constitutional right.
You haven't given us any Science yet.
I am not trying to convince anyone.
Oh? Then why do you keep posting?
Yes homosexuality is congenital aberration of behavior same as other
psychological irregularities and no one can do anything about it,
So, we went from something that needs "correction" to a "congenital
aberration"? Are you even aware of the derrogatory terms you use to
describe homosexuality? Have you noticed?
the term sexual preference means that man prefer man or woman prefer woman
for sexual gratification.
You can define it that way if you wish. However, if you are trying to
imply that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is "only about sex", then
you'll have to give us an actual argument supporting that assertion, an
argument that deals with the abundant counter-evidence.
Yes you can compare religion and homosexual preference if you want,
although it is quite offensive.
:) Oh? Which of the two should be offended?
But remember, that religious leaders
don't go to court and ask to change definition of basic and
fundamental concepts.
No, they go to court to try to get the State to put its power behind
their particular religious beliefs, even going so far as to try to
substitute mythology for science in *public* school classrooms.
People who were married before will continue to be married.
Nothing will be destroyed.
That is only your opinion,...
What, they *won't* be married? How does that work?
not supported by the facts,
Given your fact-free posts, you're one to talk.
Besides, same-sex marriages are perfectly legal in Spain, Canada, and
The Netherlands, and, so far as I know, people haven't stopped being
married or getting married in those countries.
when I say you destroying marriage that means you tear down
definition and structure,
You mean, you'll see marriages that don't fit *your* understanding of
what marriage is? Dude, that's your problem, not the institution's.
Same-sex marriages are legal in other countries, so if same-sex
marriage is going to make marriage go away, it's too late.
I explained earlier, marriage is an contract between wife and husband,
when couple wants to marry, man wants to be a husband and woman wants
to be a wife, it is very simple.
Your understanding of marriage is very simple, yes.
That is exactly the main reason why
people want to marry, because everything else achievable without the
marriage, kids, love, whatever.
This sentence makes no sense. And, again, I *am* married, and I have a
better understanding of why *I* got married than you do. Indeed, you
have no idea why I got married unless I tell you.
And government provide us an instrument
called marriage - i.e. documented assurance that men will be a
husband and women a wife.
What the hell? Now, marriage is "documented assurance that men will be
a husband and women a wife"? You really should pick a definition and
stick to it.
Now by changing definition of marriage you
change everything. You offer me to be a sexless Party A or Party B.
What stops you from calling yourself "husband", "wife", or whatever
else you want to call yourself?
That is totally different venture, and it might require changing my
attitude about marriage.
Well then, you'll change your attitude about marriage... or you won't.
What you choose to believe is up to you. My marriage certainly won't
change if same-sex marriage is recognized in the US.
Why should I marry if it is not marriage,
take all benefit you want but give me something then that would fit my
understanding of marriage,
It's up to you to figure out whether you should get married or not.
I think I have right, that supported by
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16
Given your grasp of the facts thus far, I'm not even going to bother
looking that up. Quote it if you wish, and we can discuss it's
relevance... which, I'm guessing, is "none at all."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 07:11:24 PM |
|
|
Questions about science? just read the medical books man, those that
approved by American Medical Association
They aren't protesting *against* the institution of marriage, but
rather *for* inclusion in it. They don't want to destroy it, they want
to join it!
Why don't they create their new attractive supper-duper union and I
will ask them whether I can join. Just do not touch marriage, you did
not create it - don't touch it. That is it. If you think marriage
institution is discriminatory, and then please fight to abolish it as
discriminatory institution. Same way as slavery, and race
discrimination were eliminated.
What stops you from calling yourself "husband", "wife", or whatever
else you want to call yourself?
Do not be naive, you call yourself whatever name you like. What you
might not like when someone else will call you a wife even if you think
you are husband.
It is very simple if you don't like definiton of marriage then go and
create new alternative. I just do not understand what gay people want.
If they want me to be equal with them, sorry I do not want to be a gay.
No, they go to court to try to get the State to put its power behind
their particular religious beliefs, even going so far as to try to
substitute mythology for science in *public* school classrooms.
They can do whatever they want, as long as they are not trying to
declare that white is not white but gray and black is not black but
gray.
What the hell? Now, marriage is "documented assurance that men will be
a husband and women a wife"? You really should pick a definition and
stick to it.
Once again, I said marriage have a definition and a structure,
the structure presumes one husband and one wife
Looks like you support changes but not really know what you going to
change.
My marriage certainly won't
change if same-sex marriage is recognized in the US.
Don't be so sure about this, you are saying that because you do not
understand consequences of gay marriage legalization. One day your wife
say that you are wife and she is a husband, you might not like it. And
of course she will be able to change her identity every day.
It's up to you to figure out whether you should get married or not.
Certainly, but we are talking about whole society, the less people
get married the less children will be born. You probably have no
children so you do not care about human extinction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 10:59:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Do not be naive, you call yourself whatever name you like. What you
might not like when someone else will call you a wife even if you think
you are husband.
It is very simple if you don't like definiton of marriage then go and
create new alternative. I just do not understand what gay people want.
They want to normalize homosexuality.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 01:55:36 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Q3XWe.59331$4i6.29258@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
Do not be naive, you call yourself whatever name you like. What you
might not like when someone else will call you a wife even if you think
you are husband.
It is very simple if you don't like definiton of marriage then go and
create new alternative. I just do not understand what gay people want.
They want to normalize homosexuality.
So? You prefer treating them as second class citizens, of course.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:32:01 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
Do not be naive, you call yourself whatever name you like. What you
might not like when someone else will call you a wife even if you think
you are husband.
It is very simple if you don't like definiton of marriage then go and
create new alternative. I just do not understand what gay people want.
They want to normalize homosexuality.
Well, in a sense, maybe...
There are extremists on in every issue. Being either gay or straight
doesn't preclude one also being a jerk.
But...
People fall in love. In this society, that bond can and is often
formalized in a ceremony recognized by the state. This recognition 1)
is emotionally rewarding for those desiring it, and 2) confers specific
rights and responsibilities enforced by the state. So you can't get
married and then fornicate like a rabbit, if your spouse objects -- the
state agrees with your spouse, and will penalize you in the dissolution
of your contract (marriage). Conversely, if your spouse is in the
hospital, for instance, *You*, as the person closest to that spouse,
get to act as the guardian of the spouse's wishes with respect to care,
and see that spouse -- in contrast to the many cases of gay long-time
partnerships where the partner is suddenly banned from a hospital room
by a relative, because their rights aren't recognized. And there are
rights with respect to property as well. So it's not a small issue.
In effect, a marriage is a contract. It is a contract between two
people who mutually pledge to exclusively care for each other, support
each other, and not be jerks to each other. In that regard, it is the
cornerstone of civilization -- small committed relationships create a
stable society.
It seems to me to be pretty silly to prevent two people from
contracting together in that way. It also (frankly, and I know this
will ***** people off) seemed to me a bit overreaching to demand it be
called "marriage," when most people associate that word with "I Love
Lucy" and "Leave It To Beaver" and so forth. Civil unions, however,
could legally achieve everything asked for, and actually *be* defacto
marriages (I mean, what *is* a ceremony before a Notary but a civil
union), without engendering the resistance. But still, what we're
talking about is the ability to contract with each other.
I've read some of your objections about children. A couple of things
on that.
First, there are already a *huge* number of kids born to single moms.
I hate that. Not that I hate the moms or the babies, but I know what
it means for both of them, usually. Still, I can't change it --
because I can't change biology, and I'm absolutely unwilling to even
consider what draconian measures would be involved in even *trying to
change it.
Point being, biologically speaking, if people really, truly *want* to
have kids, they're going to have them, gay or straight, and there's not
a damn thing you or I can do about it.
Except learn from it, actually. Learn what it might mean to grow up in
a household headed by two people of the same sex. Early reports
indicate a pretty good foundation -- but I have to concede that the
early reports are based on primarily lesbians who are clearly wanting
children enough to go to extraordinary means to have them -- which is
automatically going to put them several steps ahead of the average
heterosexual couple who "oops" had a baby. Sort of like adoptive
parents -- anyone who wants a child that badly is going to be also
motivated to be the best parent they can figure out how to be.
So then the issue is adoption. Can gay couples adopt. I'm more of a
"wait and see" on that one, primarily because the first interest there
is the children. And though, in most states, being married is *one*
prerequisite for adoption, it's not the only one. So really, the issue
here is solely about whether people should be allowed to form a
contract together, to mutually pledge fidelity and cooperation and all
that good jazz.
In a nutshell, the objection about gay marriage causing people to go
out and make babies seems sort of tangential. They're already doing
it, and heterosexuals are doing it in record numbers. The difference,
at *this* point, is that the homosexuals who are doing it, are doing so
with the intention of becoming parents -- and seem to be doing a pretty
good job with *being* parents (as opposed to too many of heterosexuals,
who keep generating these children I find in my home and neighborhood,
and weep over, and then finally fear).
Sunny
who is bored this week -- the non-hurricane blew away all her work
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:28:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In a nutshell, the objection about gay marriage causing people to go
out and make babies seems sort of tangential. They're already doing
it, and heterosexuals are doing it in record numbers. The difference,
at *this* point, is that the homosexuals who are doing it, are doing so
with the intention of becoming parents -- and seem to be doing a pretty
good job with *being* parents (as opposed to too many of heterosexuals,
who keep generating these children I find in my home and neighborhood,
and weep over, and then finally fear).
Hi Sunny - great to see you in this asylum.
As I have stated many times, the major difference is that in a gay
marriage the children must of NECESSITY be born through artificial means
such as sperm banks and surrogacy. I do not want that, for the sake of
those children. Yes, there are many variations on a theme and problems
with hetero marriage, and we can't stop single moms from momming, but we
can establish a norm, or definition of the desired system, and give it a
name, called "marriage." That's about it.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:42:57 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
stillsunny1@yahoo.com wrote:
In a nutshell, the objection about gay marriage causing people to go
out and make babies seems sort of tangential. They're already doing
it, and heterosexuals are doing it in record numbers. The difference,
at *this* point, is that the homosexuals who are doing it, are doing so
with the intention of becoming parents -- and seem to be doing a pretty
good job with *being* parents (as opposed to too many of heterosexuals,
who keep generating these children I find in my home and neighborhood,
and weep over, and then finally fear).
Hi Sunny - great to see you in this asylum.
As I have stated many times, the major difference is that in a gay
marriage the children must of NECESSITY be born through artificial means
such as sperm banks and surrogacy.
....or adoption.
Tell me, though. What is your obsession with children? What does this
have to do with marriage?
I do not want that, for the sake of
those children.
So, sperm banks and surrogacy is only a homosexual thing?
Yes, there are many variations on a theme and problems
with hetero marriage, and we can't stop single moms from momming, but we
can establish a norm, or definition of the desired system, and give it a
name, called "marriage." That's about it.
Desired? You mean your desires, don't you?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:08:11 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
stillsunny1@yahoo.com wrote:
In a nutshell, the objection about gay marriage causing people to go
out and make babies seems sort of tangential. They're already doing
it, and heterosexuals are doing it in record numbers. The difference,
at *this* point, is that the homosexuals who are doing it, are doing so
with the intention of becoming parents -- and seem to be doing a pretty
good job with *being* parents (as opposed to too many of heterosexuals,
who keep generating these children I find in my home and neighborhood,
and weep over, and then finally fear).
Hi Sunny - great to see you in this asylum.
As I have stated many times, the major difference is that in a gay
marriage the children must of NECESSITY be born through artificial means
such as sperm banks and surrogacy.
See: Adoption, and "Previous Marriage"
I do not want that, for the sake of those children.
We're all still waiting for you to tell us how these children are being
harmed.
Yes, there are many variations on a theme and problems
with hetero marriage, and we can't stop single moms from momming, but we
can establish a norm, or definition of the desired system, and give it a
name, called "marriage." That's about it.
Same-sex marriages are legal today in and out of this country. The norm
remains (and you can't blame celebrity "stunt marriages", "Who wants to
marry a millionare?" 'reality' shows and drunken eighteen year olds
getting married by Elvis impersonators and same-sex marriage).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:38:12 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
stillsunny1@yahoo.com wrote:
In a nutshell, the objection about gay marriage causing people to go
out and make babies seems sort of tangential. They're already doing
it, and heterosexuals are doing it in record numbers. The difference,
at *this* point, is that the homosexuals who are doing it, are doing so
with the intention of becoming parents -- and seem to be doing a pretty
good job with *being* parents (as opposed to too many of heterosexuals,
who keep generating these children I find in my home and neighborhood,
and weep over, and then finally fear).
Hi Sunny - great to see you in this asylum.
<grin>
As I have stated many times, the major difference is that in a gay
marriage the children must of NECESSITY be born through artificial means
such as sperm banks and surrogacy. I do not want that, for the sake of
those children. Yes, there are many variations on a theme and problems
with hetero marriage, and we can't stop single moms from momming, but we
can establish a norm, or definition of the desired system, and give it a
name, called "marriage." That's about it.
See if I follow your premise correctly.
1) Marriage is about having and raising children
2) Therefore, gay couples marrying would also be about having and
raising children
3) Those gay couples would have to use alternative methods to achieve
having those children
4) Those alternative methods would create an unstable situation for
those children
5) Therefore, you're against it.
Is that right? I think that's what I'm reading.
What if I said that marriage, at this historic point, is not only about
raising children, but about simply having a ceremony to formalize a
deeply loving and intimate personal relationship between two people?
So that people who are too old to have kids, or medically unable to
have kids, are marrying, too.
As far as having children, what I think everyone keeps trying to point
out is, it's already happening, in both gay and straight relationships.
It's fairly difficult to legislate biology. So lesbians, for
instance, are already getting pregnant, through whatever means, and
having kids, often with partners. The marriage, as it were, would only
formalize the relationship those children are being raised in. More
importantly, it would confer certain legal *obligations* on both
individuals.
In other words, what you apparently fear is already happening, but
without any system by which the parties can be held responsible for the
care and support of the children themselves.
Sunny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 09:56:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
See if I follow your premise correctly.
1) Marriage is about having and raising children
2) Therefore, gay couples marrying would also be about having and
raising children
3) Those gay couples would have to use alternative methods to achieve
having those children
4) Those alternative methods would create an unstable situation for
those children
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
5) Therefore, you're against it.
Is that right? I think that's what I'm reading.
What if I said that marriage, at this historic point, is not only about
raising children, but about simply having a ceremony to formalize a
deeply loving and intimate personal relationship between two people?
So that people who are too old to have kids, or medically unable to
have kids, are marrying, too.
How would such people be spewing out illegitimate children, Sunny?
As far as having children, what I think everyone keeps trying to point
out is, it's already happening, in both gay and straight relationships.
It's fairly difficult to legislate biology. So lesbians, for
instance, are already getting pregnant, through whatever means, and
having kids, often with partners. The marriage, as it were, would only
formalize the relationship those children are being raised in. More
importantly, it would confer certain legal *obligations* on both
individuals.
In other words, what you apparently fear is already happening, but
without any system by which the parties can be held responsible for the
care and support of the children themselves.
Murder, incest, and rape are already happening too. But I am against them.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 10:37:35 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
stillsunny1@yahoo.com wrote:
See if I follow your premise correctly.
1) Marriage is about having and raising children
2) Therefore, gay couples marrying would also be about having and
raising children
3) Those gay couples would have to use alternative methods to achieve
having those children
4) Those alternative methods would create an unstable situation for
those children
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
This isn't about homosexuals, then.
5) Therefore, you're against it.
Is that right? I think that's what I'm reading.
What if I said that marriage, at this historic point, is not only about
raising children, but about simply having a ceremony to formalize a
deeply loving and intimate personal relationship between two people?
So that people who are too old to have kids, or medically unable to
have kids, are marrying, too.
How would such people be spewing out illegitimate children, Sunny?
How would homosexuals spew out illegitimate children, Gary?
As far as having children, what I think everyone keeps trying to point
out is, it's already happening, in both gay and straight relationships.
It's fairly difficult to legislate biology. So lesbians, for
instance, are already getting pregnant, through whatever means, and
having kids, often with partners. The marriage, as it were, would only
formalize the relationship those children are being raised in. More
importantly, it would confer certain legal *obligations* on both
individuals.
In other words, what you apparently fear is already happening, but
without any system by which the parties can be held responsible for the
care and support of the children themselves.
Murder, incest, and rape are already happening too. But I am against them.
Because it is harmful to the victim of it. Tell me. Who is the victim
in homosexual marriage?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 03:56:48 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
This isn't about homosexuals, then.
No, I guess it's more about the children.
How would homosexuals spew out illegitimate children, Gary?
By employing sperm banks, surrogate mothers, or even a combination of
both! If you are a gay couple, and want a "baby," you could hire a
woman, find a sperm bank, and the resulting child would have nothing to
do with either of you, genetically speaking. Some of them have done just
that, then split up before the "child" was born, and no one knew what to
do with the baby when it was born. Just toss it in an orphanage, I guess.
Murder, incest, and rape are already happening too. But I am against
them.
Because it is harmful to the victim of it. Tell me. Who is the victim
in homosexual marriage?
The children.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 09:04:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:56:48 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
This isn't about homosexuals, then.
No, I guess it's more about the children.
How would homosexuals spew out illegitimate children, Gary?
By employing sperm banks, surrogate mothers, or even a combination of
both!
How would that create illegitimate children (the key word being
"illegitimate"). How would it be different than heterosexuals having
children that way?
If you are a gay couple, and want a "baby," you could hire a
woman, find a sperm bank, and the resulting child would have nothing to
do with either of you, genetically speaking.
Just like adopted children. Perhaps we should outlaw adoption.
Some of them have done just
that, then split up before the "child" was born, and no one knew what to
do with the baby when it was born. Just toss it in an orphanage, I guess.
What happens when other couples separate?
Murder, incest, and rape are already happening too. But I am against
them.
Because it is harmful to the victim of it. Tell me. Who is the victim
in homosexual marriage?
The children.
How? So far you have mentioned possibilities also existing for
heterosexual couples and their children. People adopt, use artificial
insemination etc. Do you want that to stop or just for homosexuals?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 04:47:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:56:48 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
This isn't about homosexuals, then.
No, I guess it's more about the children.
It's already been agreed that "children" are NOT the sole reason for
marriage, so children can't really be used as an arguement against
same sex marriage.
How would homosexuals spew out illegitimate children, Gary?
By employing sperm banks, surrogate mothers, or even a combination of
both! If you are a gay couple, and want a "baby," you could hire a
woman, find a sperm bank, and the resulting child would have nothing to
do with either of you, genetically speaking. Some of them have done just
that, then split up before the "child" was born, and no one knew what to
do with the baby when it was born. Just toss it in an orphanage, I guess.
Is that what happens when a M/F couple split up before the child was
born? Interesting... I NEVER knew that.. I still learn something
new every day.
Bigot.
Murder, incest, and rape are already happening too. But I am against
them.
Because it is harmful to the victim of it. Tell me. Who is the victim
in homosexual marriage?
The children.
A child with one loving parent, two loving parents (M/F, M/M, or F/F),
or an extended family of cousins, grandparents, one crazy uncle and 4
aunts will generally speaking, grow up Healthy and Strong.
Only a bigot or uninformed person would say a child of M/M, or F/F, or
one parent would be hurt by it.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 10:59:13 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
stillsunny1@yahoo.com wrote:
See if I follow your premise correctly.
1) Marriage is about having and raising children
2) Therefore, gay couples marrying would also be about having and
raising children
3) Those gay couples would have to use alternative methods to achieve
having those children
4) Those alternative methods would create an unstable situation for
those children
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
How does this justify preventing same-sex couples from marrying and
raising children?
Keep in mind that same-sex couples raise children which are theirs via
adoption, previous marriage, and artificial means, all means that
mixed-sex couples are also using right now.
Also, if lineage and birthright is really that important, mechanisms
can be put in place such that children can get this information when
they come of age.
5) Therefore, you're against it.
Is that right? I think that's what I'm reading.
What if I said that marriage, at this historic point, is not only about
raising children, but about simply having a ceremony to formalize a
deeply loving and intimate personal relationship between two people?
So that people who are too old to have kids, or medically unable to
have kids, are marrying, too.
How would such people be spewing out illegitimate children, Sunny?
People are "spewing out illegitimate children" (as you define the term)
right now. Can you give us evidence that they are being harmed as a
result?
As far as having children, what I think everyone keeps trying to point
out is, it's already happening, in both gay and straight relationships.
It's fairly difficult to legislate biology. So lesbians, for
instance, are already getting pregnant, through whatever means, and
having kids, often with partners. The marriage, as it were, would only
formalize the relationship those children are being raised in. More
importantly, it would confer certain legal *obligations* on both
individuals.
In other words, what you apparently fear is already happening, but
without any system by which the parties can be held responsible for the
care and support of the children themselves.
Murder, incest, and rape are already happening too. But I am against them.
How are same-sex couples raising children comparable to murder, incest,
or rape?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 04:02:42 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
How does this justify preventing same-sex couples from marrying and
raising children?
Because they would not stop at adoption.
Keep in mind that same-sex couples raise children which are theirs via
adoption, previous marriage, and artificial means, all means that
mixed-sex couples are also using right now.
Also, if lineage and birthright is really that important, mechanisms
can be put in place such that children can get this information when
they come of age.
Your family, your lineage, are not "information." We are not cats and
dogs, we are human. We have a need and a right to know who we are, why
we were born, what our place in society is. Witness adoptees who seek
out their birth parents.
People are "spewing out illegitimate children" (as you define the term)
right now. Can you give us evidence that they are being harmed as a
result?
You mean like following them around and taking notes? No, I'm just using
common sense.
How are same-sex couples raising children comparable to murder, incest,
or rape?
The are both "happening right now" - most of your reasoning justifying them.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:01:03 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
How does this justify preventing same-sex couples from marrying and
raising children?
Because they would not stop at adoption.
You have yet to demonstrate that these other methods of producing
children are a source of harm. You also haven't addressed the fact that
mixed-sex couples use those methods, too. Do you believe that all such
methods should be illegal? Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt
existing children? Should sterile mixed-sex couples be allowed to
marry, given that they'd have the same incentive to produce
"illegitmate" children as you claim exists for same-sex couples?
Keep in mind that same-sex couples raise children which are theirs via
adoption, previous marriage, and artificial means, all means that
mixed-sex couples are also using right now.
Also, if lineage and birthright is really that important, mechanisms
can be put in place such that children can get this information when
they come of age.
Your family, your lineage, are not "information." We are not cats and
dogs, we are human.
Yes, it is information. It also carries other import. You seem to place
a great deal of value in lineage and biological antecedents. Why?
We have a need and a right to know who we are, why
we were born, what our place in society is. Witness adoptees who seek
out their birth parents.
The need you speak of does not appear to be a universal one. And, as
for it being a right, that remains to be established. Mechanisms can be
put in place such that adopted children, or those who are produced by
other means, can know their biological parents.
People are "spewing out illegitimate children" (as you define the term)
right now. Can you give us evidence that they are being harmed as a
result?
You mean like following them around and taking notes? No, I'm just using
common sense.
So, do you have any evidence to back up your claims, or don't you?
Should we just take the word of your "common sense"? My common sense
suggest to me that you don't have any support for your assertions. My
common sense, and the evidence of several studies of same-sex couples,
indicates to me that the children of same-sex families do just fine, in
direct contradiction of your claims.
If you have evidence, let's see it.
If you don't, be man enough to admit it.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 04:50:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:02:42 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
You mean like following them around and taking notes? No, I'm just using
common sense.
I'm not sure why they call it that... it makes NO sense and isn't all
that common.
Children raised around loving adults turn out GOOD. The adults'
gender really doesn't matter one iota.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:39:29 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
21:02:42 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Also, if lineage and birthright is really that important, mechanisms
can be put in place such that children can get this information when
they come of age.
Your family, your lineage, are not "information." We are not cats and
dogs, we are human. We have a need and a right to know who we are, why
we were born, what our place in society is. Witness adoptees who seek
out their birth parents.
"Our place in society"? News flash, the Edwardian Age is long over.
And their place is what ever they make of themselves.
Some adoptees seek out their birthparents. Some don't. I've known
both, and the reasons for looking range from wanting to know why they
were given up to needing medical information. I've never known a
single adopted person who felt s/he was rootless and had no place
because s/he wasn't acquainted with the genetic parents.
Indeed, some adoptees I know have the attitude that they are better
off not knowing.
People are "spewing out illegitimate children" (as you define the term)
right now. Can you give us evidence that they are being harmed as a
result?
You mean like following them around and taking notes? No, I'm just using
common sense.
Ah. Making up *****. Typical. When asked to back the very core of
your argument, you have nothing. Nothing at all.
How are same-sex couples raising children comparable to murder, incest,
or rape?
The are both "happening right now" - most of your reasoning justifying them.
Gary, Baseball is "happening right now" as well, so illigetimate
children are the same as baseball. Right?
--
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: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 08:42:55 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
How are same-sex couples raising children comparable to murder, incest,
or rape?
The are both "happening right now" - most of your reasoning justifying them.
Gary, Baseball is "happening right now" as well, so illigetimate
children are the same as baseball. Right?
Yes, according to your logic.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 10:29:46 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Tue, 20 Sep 2005
01:42:55 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
How are same-sex couples raising children comparable to murder, incest,
or rape?
The are both "happening right now" - most of your reasoning justifying them.
Gary, Baseball is "happening right now" as well, so illigetimate
children are the same as baseball. Right?
Yes, according to your logic.
Nope, that's what you are claiming.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:01:41 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
stillsunny1@yahoo.com wrote:
See if I follow your premise correctly.
1) Marriage is about having and raising children
2) Therefore, gay couples marrying would also be about having and
raising children
3) Those gay couples would have to use alternative methods to achieve
having those children
4) Those alternative methods would create an unstable situation for
those children
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
Well, I have to hand it to you. That's the most original objection
I've read, although I don't know that it's particularly effective.
5) Therefore, you're against it.
Is that right? I think that's what I'm reading.
What if I said that marriage, at this historic point, is not only about
raising children, but about simply having a ceremony to formalize a
deeply loving and intimate personal relationship between two people?
So that people who are too old to have kids, or medically unable to
have kids, are marrying, too.
How would such people be spewing out illegitimate children, Sunny?
They wouldn't, obviously. I think I'm simply trying to point out that
marriage isn't only about children, though I'll happily grant its
historic function has been exactly that, in large part.
As far as having children, what I think everyone keeps trying to point
out is, it's already happening, in both gay and straight relationships.
It's fairly difficult to legislate biology. So lesbians, for
instance, are already getting pregnant, through whatever means, and
having kids, often with partners. The marriage, as it were, would only
formalize the relationship those children are being raised in. More
importantly, it would confer certain legal *obligations* on both
individuals.
In other words, what you apparently fear is already happening, but
without any system by which the parties can be held responsible for the
care and support of the children themselves.
Murder, incest, and rape are already happening too. But I am against them.
Gary, I'm bowing out. This thread is unwieldy, and you've already got
a mountain of people climbing your frame. It's what happens in cross
posts with a hot topic. Maybe we can discuss this some other time.
Sunny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 05:35:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
Well, I have to hand it to you. That's the most original objection
I've read, although I don't know that it's particularly effective.
In order to accept his argument we must believe:
1) Same-sex marriage will result in more kids born to same-sex couples
than would without same-sex marriage (I agree with this assertion
because marriage provides incentives to having kids, although some
same-sex couples will have kids either way).
2) Having kids born to same-sex couples is not just less than optimal
(having them born to their natural parents), it is harmful (lacking
evidence to that assertion, I disagree).
3) The harm done in #2, is not offset by the good done by the same-sex
couples who would be unmarried with kids without same-sex marriage, but
instead are married with kids thanks to same-sex marriage (who knows
about this one).
It's a weak-***** argument, that's a pre-text. From his other posts, his
true reason is that he believes homosexuality is a disorder.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 08:48:18 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
It's a weak-***** argument, that's a pre-text. From his other posts, his
true reason is that he believes homosexuality is a disorder.
What exactly do you mean by a "disorder"? I never used that term. I do
think it is a biological abnormality. There is no purpose, biologically
speaking, for two individuals of the same sex being attracted. Nature
just doesn't work that way.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 10:31:07 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Tue, 20 Sep 2005
01:48:18 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
It's a weak-***** argument, that's a pre-text. From his other posts, his
true reason is that he believes homosexuality is a disorder.
What exactly do you mean by a "disorder"? I never used that term. I do
think it is a biological abnormality. There is no purpose, biologically
speaking, for two individuals of the same sex being attracted. Nature
just doesn't work that way.
In a troops species, such as most primates (that includes us) you
can't see the advantage to a small population of adults who are not
tied down with raising young?
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
