California And Gay Marriage

Religions > Atheism > California And Gay Marriage

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 37 of 50

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: ""
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	30 Sep 2005 08:53:39 AM

Of course definitions are a courts responsibility,
if they violate the constitution.

Since when marriage violated a consitution, even if it is then marriage
should be abolished, same as racial segregation. And by the way blacks
did not demand to rename definition of color of skin, although gay want
artificially change meaning of marriage.

200 years ago the
word "search" meant someone going thru your papers.
Now it means wiretaps, drug tests, thermal imaging
and DNA tests.

Meaning of search stayed the same, what you have listed here is means
of search.

Ditto for other word like "equal"
and "access" and "intent" and "obscene". Indeed, just
look at the stuggle over "life".
Do frozen embryoes have "life"? Does a braindead person on respirators
have "life"?

Meaning of life stayed the same, you are talking about specifically
human life.
.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	30 Sep 2005 04:15:07 PM

On 30 Sep 2005 06:53:39 -0700,

wrote:

Of course definitions are a courts responsibility,
if they violate the constitution.

DEFINITIONS are "artificial".... We can call 'blue', 'red', but it is
what it is, you can say "marriage is ONLY 1 Male and 1 Female" but it
is what it is.... a social union of two or more people.
You may pretend as if YOUR "god" defines marriage in a specific way,
but that's religion and nothing to do with reality.
The Christian god used to allow one man to have more than one wife and
King David had male lover... You're simply pretending that man-made
definitions can't change.

200 years ago the
word "search" meant someone going thru your papers.
Now it means wiretaps, drug tests, thermal imaging
and DNA tests.

Meaning of search stayed the same, what you have listed here is means
of search.

And we're adding to what it means to be "married" in the same way.
ADDING.. not taking away from any hetrosexual's definition of their
spouse.
All you're doing is letting your bigotry or fear of homosexuals define
a word for you. All your Conflict would VANISH if you believed that
whatever two people did in their own home didn't effect YOU in any way
whatsoever.
Oh, wait, IT DOESN'T.
James, Seattle
.

User: "Martin McPhillips"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	30 Sep 2005 04:52:25 PM

"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in
message news:b7arj1tu883ndjvqnk2kalvfrlkjpdlhq0@4ax.com...

On 30 Sep 2005 06:53:39 -0700,

wrote:

Of course definitions are a courts responsibility,
if they violate the constitution.

Since when marriage violated a consitution, even if it is
then marriage
should be abolished, same as racial segregation. And by
the way blacks
did not demand to rename definition of color of skin,
although gay want
artificially change meaning of marriage.

DEFINITIONS are "artificial".... We can call 'blue',
'red', but it is
what it is, you can say "marriage is ONLY 1 Male and 1
Female" but it
is what it is.... a social union of two or more people.

Don't be an idiot. You can call marriage "blue" or blue
"marriage",
but the thing represented by *marriage* is the union of a
man and a woman in their natural opposition and
complementarity.
That's what marriage is.
.

User: "Paul Erickson"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	01 Oct 2005 02:47:49 PM

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:52:25 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in
message news:b7arj1tu883ndjvqnk2kalvfrlkjpdlhq0@4ax.com...

On 30 Sep 2005 06:53:39 -0700,

wrote:

Of course definitions are a courts responsibility,
if they violate the constitution.

Since when marriage violated a consitution, even if it is
then marriage
should be abolished, same as racial segregation. And by
the way blacks
did not demand to rename definition of color of skin,
although gay want
artificially change meaning of marriage.

DEFINITIONS are "artificial".... We can call 'blue',
'red', but it is
what it is, you can say "marriage is ONLY 1 Male and 1
Female" but it
is what it is.... a social union of two or more people.

Good, so you won't mind people calling gay unions marriages. Changing
the word doesn't change the thing, so i would imagine you wouldn't
care. According to you, I would imagine, gay marriages still wouldn't
exist. Everybody happy.
<sigh>
Slobbering Skeleton
.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	30 Sep 2005 05:45:42 PM

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:52:25 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in
message news:b7arj1tu883ndjvqnk2kalvfrlkjpdlhq0@4ax.com...

On 30 Sep 2005 06:53:39 -0700,

wrote:

Of course definitions are a courts responsibility,
if they violate the constitution.

Since when marriage violated a consitution, even if it is
then marriage
should be abolished, same as racial segregation. And by
the way blacks
did not demand to rename definition of color of skin,
although gay want
artificially change meaning of marriage.

DEFINITIONS are "artificial".... We can call 'blue',
'red', but it is
what it is, you can say "marriage is ONLY 1 Male and 1
Female" but it
is what it is.... a social union of two or more people.

Dont' start calling me and "idiot" for disagreeing with you on this.
*WE* created definitions of words.
Marriage is *NOT* about procreation. (it's not a requirement to get or
stay married)
Marriage is *NOT* about a god since non-religious people can get
married.
Marriage is *NOT* about some manmade definition since words' meanings
change all the time.
If marriage isn't about procreation or any specific religion, there's
NO REASON two people of of the same sex cannot get married and have
all the benefits and liablities of such a union.
If you have a reason that they can't get married that's not list
above, I'd love to hear it.
james, Seattle
.

User: ""
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	01 Oct 2005 12:30:52 PM

DEFINITIONS are "artificial".... We can call 'blue', 'red', but it is
what it is, you can say "marriage is ONLY 1 Male and 1 Female" but it
is what it is.... a social union of two or more people.

That is your personal opinion and that opinion contradict to public
understanding of what the marriage is. If you simply want to change it
because you want to, then don't be surprise when people strongly
disagree with that.

You may pretend as if YOUR "god" defines marriage in a specific way,
but that's religion and nothing to do with reality.

It is already have been defined by founders of the country, and system
is in place, The only reason institution of marriage exist, because it
is a part of the system of procreation and reproduction of healthy
society. You have chosen to support those who want to destroy that
system, well, I support the system and will fight for it, I think that
system is great, it serves the purpose, and it does not violate rights
of anybody.

The Christian god used to allow one man to have more than one wife and
King David had male lover... You're simply pretending that man-made
definitions can't change.

Christian god has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage. The
issue is that group of people declare themselves a special group, based
on their feeling and their sex drive. Even thought it is impossible
objectively identify who belongs to that group, that group wants to
destroy a system using any possible means. System that was in place at
least 200 years in this country, system that has never been condemned
before.
Sorry man, you are wrong, if you want to continue revolution, go for
it, but do be upset when the revolution gets you.

And we're adding to what it means to be "married" in the same way.
ADDING.. not taking away from any hetrosexual's definition of their
spouse

ADDING means destroying, somehow we are not mixing sugar and salt in
the same container, although use use both for food.

All you're doing is letting your bigotry or fear of homosexuals define
a word for you. All your Conflict would VANISH if you believed that
whatever two people did in their own home didn't effect YOU in any way
whatsoever.

You don't know me and you have no evidences that I am a bigot, or
homophobe, since you have only your word against mine I am telling you
that I am not. However, even if I am bigot and homophobe, it is your
responsibility to respect homophobes the same way as you respect
homophiles.
.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	02 Oct 2005 07:32:23 AM

On 1 Oct 2005 10:30:52 -0700,

wrote:

DEFINITIONS are "artificial".... We can call 'blue', 'red', but it is
what it is, you can say "marriage is ONLY 1 Male and 1 Female" but it
is what it is.... a social union of two or more people.

That is your personal opinion and that opinion contradict to public
understanding of what the marriage is.

The law defines what marriage is not public understanding.
If you simply want to change it

because you want to, then don't be surprise when people strongly
disagree with that.

People are free to disagree with whatever they wish. Marriage will
still be what the law says it is.

You may pretend as if YOUR "god" defines marriage in a specific way,
but that's religion and nothing to do with reality.

It is already have been defined by founders of the country, and system
is in place,

That is irrelevant. Slavery was also in place and defined by the
founders of your country. The law changed. Slavery does not exist.

The only reason institution of marriage exist, because it
is a part of the system of procreation and reproduction of healthy
society.

No, that is your opinion. Legal marriage exists because the law says
it does. The law does not mention procreation at all. Your
continual failure to accept that legal fact does not change it.

You have chosen to support those who want to destroy that
system,

There is no such system. It is your fantasy.
well, I support the system and will fight for it, I think that

system is great, it serves the purpose, and it does not violate rights
of anybody.

It is a non-existent system. Try and find one law that says anything
about it.

The Christian god used to allow one man to have more than one wife and
King David had male lover... You're simply pretending that man-made
definitions can't change.

Christian god has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

You are correct, and your opinion does not define marriage either.
The law does, and the law can be changed. Keep ignoring that; it
makes no difference.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: ""
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	02 Oct 2005 06:13:18 PM

The law defines what marriage is not public understanding.

Laws are not imposed by aliens, laws are created by lawmakers, not
every word in every law is explicitly interpreted, most of the word
have a meaning that general public interprets only one way. One of
those words is marriage, and all laws related to marriage were based on
assumption that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. I think
it is very clear, that until recently no one questioned word marriage.
There are more far more states where marriage by law means union of one
man and one woman. Not sure why mentioned law.

because you want to, then don't be surprise when people strongly
disagree with that.

People are free to disagree with whatever they wish. Marriage will
still is what the law says it is.

See above, law says that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.

It is already have been defined by founders of the country, and system
is in place,

That is irrelevant. Slavery was also in place and defined by the
founders of your country. The law changed. Slavery does not exist.

It is great that law has changed, but definition of slavery still the
same. And slavery was condemned not only by black but also by many
whites. Again, if marriage is bad and discriminatory institution, it
definitely should be abolished.

The only reason institution of marriage exist, because it
is a part of the system of procreation and reproduction of healthy
society.

No, that is your opinion.

I think my opinion supported by logic; I do not see any other reason
for the government to give benefits to married couple other then to
encourage them to procreate, bring up children and teach them how
society works.

Legal marriage exists because the law says.
it does. The law does not mention procreation at all. Your
continual failure to accept that legal fact does not change it.

But laws do not mention why it is necessary not to kill each other,
there are lot of things that are not in the law, like it or not but we
live in the world of assumptions, we have a society where lot of things
are determined by mutual agreement, without explicit laws. For example
it is known fact that you should discharge intestine in the washroom,
not on the sidewalk.

You have chosen to support those who want to destroy that
system,

There is no such system. It is your fantasy.

Not sure what do you mean by fantasy, I see all signs of the system of
procreation, and it is just there? Just look around. People are
getting married, have kids, teach kids how to behave. Families (parents
grandparents, children) are getting together and discuss family issues
every member of family serves as a role model to other members of
families, adult children are encouraged to get married, have children
etc. If you don't see it, I feel sorry for you, it is you who lives
in artificial unreal world, definitely not me.

It is a non-existent system. Try and find one law that says anything
about it.

Again laws are build on assumptions, there is no law that says that we
have to sleep at night and stay awake during the day, and many other
things are not in the books.

Christian god has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

You are correct, and your opinion does not define marriage either.
The law does, and the law can be changed.

No doubt, law can be changed, everything can be changed by force, and
even white color can be called black.

Keep ignoring that; it
makes no difference.

No I am well aware of the fact that some people want to change current
law, for no real reason, not only law but definition of the words that
law has been built on. I don't think they have a right to do that, no
one takes their rights away, no one discriminate them. Group of people
that declare themselves a special. Special on what? Because they
behave differently, it is definitely not a reason to destroy current
system.
.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	03 Oct 2005 01:57:07 AM

On 2 Oct 2005 16:13:18 -0700,

wrote:

The law defines what marriage is not public understanding.

That is your opinion. Assumptions are not laws. You assume that
marriage is for procreation, but no law requires that people be able
to have children in order to be married; and many marry with no
intention or even the ability to have children. Their marriages are
still legal, and nobody suggests that they are not. Clearly your
assumptions are not supported by reality.
I think

it is very clear, that until recently no one questioned word marriage.
There are more far more states where marriage by law means union of one
man and one woman. Not sure why mentioned law.

Once again, it is the law that defines what a marriage is. The law
can be changed. In a number of jurisdictions it has been changed.
That is the objective reality no matter what your opinion or your
assumptions might be.

because you want to, then don't be surprise when people strongly
disagree with that.

People are free to disagree with whatever they wish. Marriage will
still is what the law says it is.

See above, law says that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.

In some places it does. In some places it does not. The law can be
changed. The law has been changed many times, and it differs from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from state to state and from country to
country; yet people in all of those jurisdictions are able to contract
marriages under those (sometimes) very different laws. Clearly
marriage is not defined in only one way.

It is already have been defined by founders of the country, and system
is in place,

That is irrelevant. Slavery was also in place and defined by the
founders of your country. The law changed. Slavery does not exist.

It is great that law has changed, but definition of slavery still the
same.

The definition of what a free person with full legal rights changed.

And slavery was condemned not only by black but also by many
whites.

And it existed anyway, because the law said it did.

Again, if marriage is bad and discriminatory institution, it
definitely should be abolished.

Nobody is suggesting that marriage should be abolished, just as nobody
suggested that civil rights should be abolished when they wanted to
abolish slavery.
And the marriage laws can also be changed. The law can be changed so
that Whites and Blacks can marry each other, so that people can
divorce and remarry; and the law can allow same-sex marriage. In an
increasing number of jurisdictions this has happened. Same-sex
marriage is now an objective fact no matter what your opinion or my
opinion might be. You argue that it is impossible, but clearly it
exists.

The only reason institution of marriage exist, because it
is a part of the system of procreation and reproduction of healthy
society.

No, that is your opinion.

It makes no difference what you can see. The marriage laws do not
mention any need for having children, for being able to have children
or even for having the intention of having children; therefore legally
marriage has nothing to do with procreation. You are free to think
that it should have something to do with it, but the fact is that it
does not.

Legal marriage exists because the law says.
it does. The law does not mention procreation at all. Your
continual failure to accept that legal fact does not change it.

But laws do not mention why it is necessary not to kill each other,

Laws do, however, define what homicide is. Your analogy does not
work.

there are lot of things that are not in the law, like it or not but we
live in the world of assumptions, we have a society where lot of things
are determined by mutual agreement, without explicit laws. For example
it is known fact that you should discharge intestine in the washroom,
not on the sidewalk.

It would also be illegal. Your analogy does not work. If you think
that it is wrong for people of the same sex to marry each other, you
would still be free to think so if the law allowed it; but your
opinion would not make it impossible.

You have chosen to support those who want to destroy that
system,

There is no such system. It is your fantasy.

Not sure what do you mean by fantasy, I see all signs of the system of
procreation, and it is just there? Just look around.

People have children if they are married or not married. People get
married whether or not they even intend to have children. Same-sex
marriage would do nothing to destroy marriage or even to stop people
thinking people should get married to have children, just as some
people still think that people should not get divorced; even though it
is legal.
People are

getting married, have kids, teach kids how to behave. Families (parents
grandparents, children) are getting together and discuss family issues
every member of family serves as a role model to other members of
families, adult children are encouraged to get married, have children
etc. If you don't see it, I feel sorry for you, it is you who lives
in artificial unreal world, definitely not me.

What you are imagining is that there is some kind of legal
requirement, that requires people to be married or that requires
people to have children if they are married. The reality is that the
law does not mention having children. People totally incapable of
having children get married, and there is no penalty for doing so; yet
they have not destroyed any system.

It is a non-existent system. Try and find one law that says anything
about it.

Again laws are build on assumptions, there is no law that says that we
have to sleep at night and stay awake during the day, and many other
things are not in the books.

Right, and those things are not required by the law. People are
perfectly free to sleep during the day and be awake at night. Once
again your attempt at an analogy fails.

Christian god has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

You are correct, and your opinion does not define marriage either.
The law does, and the law can be changed.

No doubt, law can be changed, everything can be changed by force, and
even white color can be called black.

And Blacks can be defined as citizens equal to White citizens no
matter what peoples' opinions might be. Yes.

Keep ignoring that; it
makes no difference.

No I am well aware of the fact that some people want to change current
law, for no real reason, not only law but definition of the words that
law has been built on.

It is the law that defines what marriage is. That law has been
changed before.
I don't think they have a right to do that, no

one takes their rights away, no one discriminate them.

That is your opinion. Your opinion is that they do not have the right
to marry another person of the same sex. There are others who think
people do not have the right to marry people of another race or a
person who has been married before. You and they certainly have a
right to their and your opinions.
Group of people

that declare themselves a special. Special on what? Because they
behave differently, it is definitely not a reason to destroy current
system.

The right of same-sex marriage is not based on anybody being special,
on the contrary it is based on the idea that they are equal to
everyone else. Furthermore it would not destroy any other person's
marriage, anymore than mixed-race marriages destroyed other people's
marriages.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	01 Oct 2005 12:54:00 PM

On 1 Oct 2005 10:30:52 -0700,

wrote:

DEFINITIONS are "artificial".... We can call 'blue', 'red', but it is
what it is, you can say "marriage is ONLY 1 Male and 1 Female" but it
is what it is.... a social union of two or more people.

You may pretend as if YOUR "god" defines marriage in a specific way,
but that's religion and nothing to do with reality.

The Christian god used to allow one man to have more than one wife and
King David had male lover... You're simply pretending that man-made
definitions can't change.

Christian god has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

Then why is it Every major anti-same-sex group is under a religious
umbrella?

The
issue is that group of people declare themselves a special group, based
on their feeling and their sex drive. Even thought it is impossible
objectively identify who belongs to that group, that group wants to
destroy a system using any possible means.

Maybe HETROsexuality is subjective and they shouldn't have the right
to marry. If you believe your own arguement, you have to believe
hetrosexuality is impossible to objectively identify.

System that was in place at
least 200 years in this country, system that has never been condemned
before.

Slavery was in place for 300 years and no whiteman ever condemned
it... so why don't we have it NOW?
Divorce was not allowed for hundreds of years... maybe we should BAN
it again too?
Your memory is quite selective.

Sorry man, you are wrong, if you want to continue revolution, go for
it, but do be upset when the revolution gets you.

Fairness and equality are indeed revolutionary. For 300 years people
in this nation have been fighting for it, and, the funny part is,
EVERY SINGLE TIME equality is sought, there's a group or attitude like
you opposing it.
You're part of a Long line of those opposed to equality and
fairness... and I bet NONE of your 'forefathers' saw themselves as
being so either.

And we're adding to what it means to be "married" in the same way.
ADDING.. not taking away from any hetrosexual's definition of their
spouse

ADDING means destroying, somehow we are not mixing sugar and salt in
the same container, although use use both for food.

Ah, just like we added "salt & pepper" back in 1964 when the SCOTUS
ruled blacks and whites could marry.
Your arguements are OLD and TIRED... you just think 'mixing sugar and
salt" is some sort of wonderfully new argument.

You don't know me and you have no evidences that I am a bigot, or
homophobe, since you have only your word against mine I am telling you
that I am not.

Riiiiiiiiight. You just keep saying that outloud... maybe you'll
convince yourself one day.

However, even if I am bigot and homophobe, it is your
responsibility to respect homophobes the same way as you respect
homophiles.

But *YOU* are the one trying to keep others from equality due to your
unreasonable fear and unproven claims (samesex marriages in Mass.
haven't destroyed marriage as a whole or taken any sanctity of the
institution away from any M/F couple in the state.)
I respect the homosexuals right to equality. I know that if George
and ***** get married, it won't hurt or effect MY marriage of 13 years
in ANY way whatsoever...
How will their marriage effect YOU?
James, Seattle
.

User: ""
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	01 Oct 2005 11:36:55 PM

Maybe HETROsexuality is subjective and they shouldn't have the right
to marry. If you believe your own arguement, you have to believe
hetrosexuality is impossible to objectively identify.

Not a problem for me, if marriage is a discriminatory institution it
has to be abolished. No marriage at all strictly contracts between two
(or more) parties. That would be fair to everyone, no insanity, no
usurpation of power, legislature will work on the details.

Slavery was in place for 300 years and no whiteman ever condemned
it... so why don't we have it NOW?

This is an attempt to divert a topic, what marriage has to do with
slavery. Where is slave-holders who is slave. Slavery unlike marriage
certainly was condemned by black people,

But *YOU* are the one trying to keep others from equality due to your
unreasonable fear and unproven claims

Equality in what? Men are not equal to women, men can't enter women's
washrooms for the sake of equality. Like I said before, marriage have
been created for opposites sex couples, not for the same sex couples.
By equalizing same sex couple with opposite same sex couple you are
destroying concept of marriage and the whole system of procreation and
reproduction of society, and I have said many time that is perfectly
fine for me. Just abolish the marriage then create something new,
something exceptionally attractive for everyone, do not forget to
include single people, that can have a unions to themelves and reap
marriage benefits.

(samesex marriages in Mass.
haven't destroyed marriage as a whole or taken any sanctity of the
institution away from any M/F couple in the state.)

If you have a power you can do whatever you want. There were numerous
countries where people were directed to think that they live in
communist paradise.
.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	02 Oct 2005 04:24:00 PM

On 1 Oct 2005 21:36:55 -0700,

wrote:

Maybe HETROsexuality is subjective and they shouldn't have the right
to marry. If you believe your own arguement, you have to believe
hetrosexuality is impossible to objectively identify.

Slavery was in place for 300 years and no whiteman ever condemned
it... so why don't we have it NOW?

This is an attempt to divert a topic, what marriage has to do with
slavery. Where is slave-holders who is slave. Slavery unlike marriage
certainly was condemned by black people,

Not at all... Your arguement is "it's been that way for a long time,
so it shouldn't change."
I'm simply giving you OTHER examples where your logic failed in the
past, and why, for the same reasons, it fails today.

But *YOU* are the one trying to keep others from equality due to your
unreasonable fear and unproven claims

Equality in what? Men are not equal to women, men can't enter women's
washrooms for the sake of equality.

State recognition of the legal contract between two married parties
has absolutely NOTHING to do with:
A. Procreation
B. Gods
C. Morality
There are many benefits that state-recognized unions recieve... there
are ALSO many liabilities taken on by the couple entering the contract
such as legal responsibility for the OTHERS financial life.
If the state can't find a reason that a same-sex couple will HARM the
state, then there isn't a reason to provent them from entering into
the legal contract.
All of YOUR arguements fall flat... "nature", "procreation",
"just-aint-right", hense, they should be recognized.

Like I said before, marriage have
been created for opposites sex couples, not for the same sex couples.
By equalizing same sex couple with opposite same sex couple you are
destroying concept of marriage and the whole system of procreation and
reproduction of society,

Are you really this dense or are you just a TROLL?
MARRIAGE IS *NOT* ABOUT PROCREATION... if it were, there would be some
rule or law stating that infertile, elderly, and those that by choice
decide not to procreate cannot marry, but there is nothing of the
sort.
You cannot use your "nature demands M/F marriages for procreation,
hence keeping the human species going" line of reasoning because it's
PATENTLY NOT TRUE. There is no State, or even nation that I'm aware
of, that requires procreation to validate a marriage.

and I have said many time that is perfectly
fine for me. Just abolish the marriage then create something new,
something exceptionally attractive for everyone,

Why abolish a *WORD* just because you're too stubborn to admit
definitions change and replace it with another word? What's the
reasoning behind that?
If you want the truth, there are normally *TWO* ceremonies that take
place for most marriages now.
1st. There is the 'marriage'; the public ceremony and recognition by
family, friends, and god if one believes in gods.
2nd. Even in the most HOLY of church weddings, back in the office,
the couple must sign legal paperwork to register with the state.
In reality, this debate is only talking about the second one here,
since the 1st one has absolutely NO legal standing.
In that 2nd one, gender doesn't matter whatsoever..

(samesex marriages in Mass.
haven't destroyed marriage as a whole or taken any sanctity of the
institution away from any M/F couple in the state.)

If you have a power you can do whatever you want. There were numerous
countries where people were directed to think that they live in
communist paradise.

So now you're equating same-sex marriages to communism?? Whaaa?
james, seattle
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	28 Sep 2005 09:29:51 AM

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:01:57 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:11:30 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in
message news:9akij15jomlagm0l1a4qfqpbfuc2qn177k@4ax.com...

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:22:44 -0400, MikeSoja
<msoja9@newsguy.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:35:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> posted:

"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dgt0ss$7v$1
@news.seed.net.tw:

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:D2eYe.92866$xl6.8252@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

Where is the "right" for homosexuals to marry written
down?

P1: Marriage is a right. (Loving v. Virginia)

Marriage is: "The legal union of a man and woman as
husband and
wife.", The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English
Language,
Fourth Edition Copyright � 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights
reserved.

MANY old dictionaries defined "masterbation" as
"self-abuse". Times
change, Mike. You cling to your 'opposite gender'
arguement like a
drowning man to a branch. It's sad to watch.

Yeah, Mike, what are you doing clinging to
reality like that.

When exactly did American Heritage editors become the supreme rulers?

When it suits the bigot's purposes. Stupid fuckers.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "nevermore"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	22 Sep 2005 05:46:20 AM

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.
--
Steve
.

User: "Peacenik"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	22 Sep 2005 11:26:29 AM

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d15j1t1ijtiidmq33ki1pn3eui9bk1mnt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Blacks and whites already have the right to marry...within their own
race." - said by bigots before 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)
.

User: "nevermore"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	22 Sep 2005 04:40:15 PM

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:26:29 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d15j1t1ijtiidmq33ki1pn3eui9bk1mnt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Blacks and whites already have the right to marry...within their own
race." - said by bigots before 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)

.....and now everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex....
--
Steve
.

User: "Peacenik"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	22 Sep 2005 08:41:00 PM

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:8jo5j157ve4iikv5kvtl1p3rq8obp1o9qp@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:26:29 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d15j1t1ijtiidmq33ki1pn3eui9bk1mnt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Blacks and whites already have the right to marry...within their own
race." - said by bigots before 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)

....and now everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex....

But not the same sex, bigot.
.

User: "nevermore"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	23 Sep 2005 05:25:29 AM

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:41:00 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:8jo5j157ve4iikv5kvtl1p3rq8obp1o9qp@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:26:29 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d15j1t1ijtiidmq33ki1pn3eui9bk1mnt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Blacks and whites already have the right to marry...within their own
race." - said by bigots before 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)

....and now everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex....

But not the same sex, bigot.

Duh!
--
Steve
.

User: "Peacenik"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	23 Sep 2005 06:45:38 AM

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:smi7j1hapuc6qmd0cis0h1abv7o3137mr1@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:41:00 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:8jo5j157ve4iikv5kvtl1p3rq8obp1o9qp@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:26:29 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d15j1t1ijtiidmq33ki1pn3eui9bk1mnt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Blacks and whites already have the right to marry...within their own
race." - said by bigots before 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)

....and now everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex....

But not the same sex, bigot.

Duh!

Ergo gays do not enjoy equal rights.
.

User: "nevermore"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	23 Sep 2005 09:28:28 AM

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:45:38 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:smi7j1hapuc6qmd0cis0h1abv7o3137mr1@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:41:00 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:8jo5j157ve4iikv5kvtl1p3rq8obp1o9qp@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:26:29 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d15j1t1ijtiidmq33ki1pn3eui9bk1mnt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Blacks and whites already have the right to marry...within their own
race." - said by bigots before 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)

....and now everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex....

But not the same sex, bigot.

Duh!

Ergo gays do not enjoy equal rights.

Of course they do... they have exactly the same rights as myself...
exactly!
--
Steve
.

User: "Peacenik"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	23 Sep 2005 10:05:31 AM

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:p348j15bd3pnq7gidsvvlbmuffj6mo6k6u@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:45:38 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:smi7j1hapuc6qmd0cis0h1abv7o3137mr1@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:41:00 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:8jo5j157ve4iikv5kvtl1p3rq8obp1o9qp@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:26:29 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d15j1t1ijtiidmq33ki1pn3eui9bk1mnt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:20:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:

Therefore gays enjoy the right of marriage.

Of course they do.... their right is th same as my right... to
marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Blacks and whites already have the right to marry...within their

own

race." - said by bigots before 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)

....and now everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex....

But not the same sex, bigot.

Duh!

Ergo gays do not enjoy equal rights.

Of course they do... they have exactly the same rights as myself...
exactly!

So you admit you're gay.
.

User: "nevermore"
Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage	23 Sep 2005 10:18:52 AM

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:05:31 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote: