| 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 |
15 Sep 2005 10:10:01 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Define normal.
Agreeing with the norm. The same as the norm. Like the norm.
Under that definition, homosexuality is not normal. But so effin what?
That definition is value neutral, and hence has no bearing on whether
same-sex marriage is good or bad.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 10:07:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:04:14 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Define normal.
Agreeing with the norm. The same as the norm. Like the norm.
Of course, if humans all agreed with the norm, we would still be up
the fucking trees, wouldn't we?
Gary Eickmeier
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 06:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:07:23 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:04:14 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Define normal.
Agreeing with the norm. The same as the norm. Like the norm.
Of course, if humans all agreed with the norm, we would still be up
the fucking trees, wouldn't we?
<LOL> ....or running through the woods howling and pretending they
were wolves....
--
"while I have not as yet had any luck with attempts
to physically shift, I do very much wish that I
could do so. In my Dreams I have run with the pack
under the full moon's light; shared in the hot sweet
blood of the kill, lifted my muzzle in song,
one-among-many, one-who-belongs."
--Greywolf Zepp Jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/8aae6dbbb5284694?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 07:57:12 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Thu, 15 Sep 2005
02:04:14 GMT iin alt.atheism?
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
Define normal.
Agreeing with the norm. The same as the norm. Like the norm.
So, any changes are bad? Any deviation from the norm, like, oh,
setting up a representative democracy when monarchies are the norm was
a bad thing, and should have been stopped.
--
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 |
13 Sep 2005 08:21:03 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly. Marriage is not simply
about children. It is first and foremost about
the unitive bond, based in the natural and
complementary opposition of the two sexes,
between the man and the woman. Marriage does
not invent this natural opposition and
complementarity, it raises it up into a
virtuous union which facilitates the
virtues of the natural family.
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Without this realization, the others would be right, it would be nothing
more than a contract between two adults (or more) to form a family, or
group, or tribe, for the purpose of mutual benefit and - well, I was
going to say raising children, but to them raising children has nothing
to do with marriage.
One interesting observation about your statements that marriage between
homosexuals is impossible: Our definition of a *****, or illegitimate
child, is one that is born out of wedlock. The gays would want to say
that if we would just let them get married, then the child would be born
in wedlock, and everything would be fine. However, if two people of the
same sex marry, then it would indeed be impossible for the mother of the
child to be married to the father of the child! So you are correct,
marriage between homosexuals is an impossibility.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 08:16:38 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly. Marriage is not simply
about children. It is first and foremost about
the unitive bond, based in the natural and
complementary opposition of the two sexes,
between the man and the woman. Marriage does
not invent this natural opposition and
complementarity, it raises it up into a
virtuous union which facilitates the
virtues of the natural family.
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:21:20 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then
what would be the purpose of marriage? If I dig a certain woman, and
want to be with no one but her, why would I need a license to do so?
Whose business would it be? Nobody would care what we did, or how long
we did it together. So there would be no marriage or need for it.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:36:48 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AU4We.78023$xl6.14853@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then
what would be the purpose of marriage?
Hmmmm....
Maybe we should have two institutions. One will be something like a civil
union, and all couples, whether same sex or different sex, will have this
status as long as they are childless. A couple can be childless and
together 50 years, but cannot have true marriage. This status will give
couples all the rights of marriage, except that it will be easy to get a
"divorce," as no children are involved.
Then marriage will be for any couple that has children, including same sex
couples who adopt. It will be harder to get a divorce, and entail
responsibilities to children. Perhaps this is a solution...
If I dig a certain woman, and
want to be with no one but her, why would I need a license to do so?
Whose business would it be? Nobody would care what we did, or how long
we did it together. So there would be no marriage or need for it.
Well, to get her covered by your (or you by her) insurance, or to enjoy plus
a myriad of legal benefits marriage brings, that status is necessary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 07:07:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:36:48 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AU4We.78023$xl6.14853@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then
what would be the purpose of marriage?
Hmmmm....
Maybe we should have two institutions. One will be something like a civil
union, and all couples, whether same sex or different sex, will have this
status as long as they are childless. A couple can be childless and
together 50 years, but cannot have true marriage. This status will give
couples all the rights of marriage, except that it will be easy to get a
"divorce," as no children are involved.
Here's a much better idea... Let's remind Scott Erb that he's just a
babysitter for college kids looking for some easy credits and he
doesn't even get to propose such policy anyplace where it matters...
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:41:46 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AU4We.78023$xl6.14853@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then what
would be the purpose of marriage?
Legal contract. Property, health benefits, life insurance, that sort of
thing.
If I dig a certain woman, and
want to be with no one but her, why would I need a license to do so?
Guess what, you don't. People do it every day.
Whose business would it be? Nobody would care what we did, or how long we
did it together. So there would be no marriage or need for it.
You do realize this is still just your opinion and there's no law about
marriage being for the sole purpose of having children, right?
You want to just live with your girlfriend? Go ahead, what's stopping you?
Hate to break it to you, but marriage isn't just about having children. If
that was the case, then it would be illegal for infertile people to get
married. Or is that something you'd like to see happen?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 10:34:41 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then
what would be the purpose of marriage? If I dig a certain woman, and
want to be with no one but her, why would I need a license to do so?
When I married my wife, we did so as a symbol of my commitment to her,
her commitment to me, and to celebrate that commitment with our
friends, family, and society at large.
We don't have children yet, but plan to in the near future. If
childbearing and rearing were off the table, *we would still have
gotten married*, and our marriage would not have lost one iota of its
value or significance.
No, it isn't just about the children. Take children off the table, and
much still remains.
Whose business would it be? Nobody would care what we did, or how long
we did it together. So there would be no marriage or need for it.
:) You've just given us a clear explanation of why *you* wouldn't get
married... and explanation that doesn't have a damn thing to say about
why anyone else will or would get married. It certainly has nothing to
say about my marriage, or the reasons for it.
Gary Eickmeier
And still, you have no argument...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 10:39:17 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then
what would be the purpose of marriage? If I dig a certain woman, and
want to be with no one but her, why would I need a license to do so?
When I married my wife, we did so as a symbol of my commitment to her,
her commitment to me, and to celebrate that commitment with our
friends, family, and society at large.
We don't have children yet, but plan to in the near future. If
childbearing and rearing were off the table, *we would still have
gotten married*, and our marriage would not have lost one iota of its
value or significance.
No, it isn't just about the children. Take children off the table, and
much still remains.
Whose business would it be? Nobody would care what we did, or how long
we did it together. So there would be no marriage or need for it.
:) You've just given us a clear explanation of why *you* wouldn't get
married... and explanation that doesn't have a damn thing to say about
why anyone else will or would get married. It certainly has nothing to
say about my marriage, or the reasons for it.
Gary Eickmeier
And still, you have no argument...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 10:40:36 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then
what would be the purpose of marriage? If I dig a certain woman, and
want to be with no one but her, why would I need a license to do so?
When I married my wife, we did so as a symbol of my commitment to her,
her commitment to me, and to celebrate that commitment with our
friends, family, and society at large.
We don't have children yet, but plan to in the near future. If
childbearing and rearing were off the table, *we would still have
gotten married*, and our marriage would not have lost one iota of its
value or significance.
No, it isn't just about the children. Take children off the table, and
much still remains.
Whose business would it be? Nobody would care what we did, or how long
we did it together. So there would be no marriage or need for it.
:) You've just given us a clear explanation of why *you* wouldn't get
married... and explanation that doesn't have a damn thing to say about
why anyone else will or would get married. It certainly has nothing to
say about my marriage, or the reasons for it.
Gary Eickmeier
And still, you have no argument...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 08:17:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:21:20 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3WKVe.67324$p_1.26490@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Out of curiosity, where is this written? It's certainly not a law.
As far as I can tell, it's only your opinion. Why not state it as such
since that's all it is?
Study the matter by subtraction. If we leave children completely out of
the picture, just ignore the implications for them for a moment, then
what would be the purpose of marriage? If I dig a certain woman, and
want to be with no one but her, why would I need a license to do so?
Whose business would it be? Nobody would care what we did, or how long
we did it together. So there would be no marriage or need for it.
Why leave children out of it? If you wanted to live with a woman,
screw, and have children, why is marriage needed? Trust me, these
things can ALL be done without being married.
Marriage is NOT about children; my wife of 14 years and I have no
desire to have children. Would you call us 'married'? I would also
like to point out that your comment about monogamy ("...want to be
with her and no one else...") isn't part of the equation either..
we're in an open relationship and it works perfect for us...
There are PLENTY of reasons to be married, both personally and at a
state and federal level. There are reasons for the BENIFITS given to
couples as well... People in loving, long-term relationships end up
living healthier, happier lives and have a built in support system,
which means government doesn't have to take on that role and expense.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 08:43:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:21:03 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Then why is fertility not a requirement for marriage in any nation of
the world?
Why do we allow people in their 90s to marry? People who phyiscally
cannot bear or father children? Why do we allow people serving life
without parole to marry, when they will never even touch their brides?
Marriage is not solely about children. It's about creating a family,
even if that family is only two people and a few cats.
Are you married, by chance?
--
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: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 09:40:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:21:03 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly. Marriage is not simply
about children. It is first and foremost about
the unitive bond, based in the natural and
complementary opposition of the two sexes,
between the man and the woman. Marriage does
not invent this natural opposition and
complementarity, it raises it up into a
virtuous union which facilitates the
virtues of the natural family.
"Unitive"?
Jeezus Fucking Christ.
Thanks again, Martin, but no, marriage is not a convenience for two
adults to commit to each other and get benefits and respect for being
allowed to live together and do the nasty. Marriage is an institution
for the benefit of the children that will result from a relationship.
Without this realization, the others would be right, it would be nothing
more than a contract between two adults (or more) to form a family, or
group, or tribe, for the purpose of mutual benefit and - well, I was
going to say raising children, but to them raising children has nothing
to do with marriage.
One interesting observation about your statements that marriage between
homosexuals is impossible: Our definition of a *****, or illegitimate
child, is one that is born out of wedlock. The gays would want to say
that if we would just let them get married, then the child would be born
in wedlock, and everything would be fine. However, if two people of the
same sex marry, then it would indeed be impossible for the mother of the
child to be married to the father of the child! So you are correct,
marriage between homosexuals is an impossibility.
Gary Eickmeier
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 05:51:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:49:31 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
You're on the right side of the issue, but you've
framed it incorrectly. Marriage is not simply
about children. It is first and foremost about
the unitive bond, based in the natural and
complementary opposition of the two sexes,
between the man and the woman. Marriage does
not invent this natural opposition and
complementarity, it raises it up into a
virtuous union which facilitates the
virtues of the natural family.
"Natually" I'm supposed to mate with as many females as I can reach,
in order to spread my genetic material as far as possible.
Monogamous marriage is hardly natural.. which is why we've had laws
and codes about adultery.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 07:58:42 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GmpVe.38111$4i6.33269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can anyone help me out?
Don't blame us because you can't get your point across. Why do you have
such a problem that not everyone feels the same about this topic as you do?
Hate to break it to you, but people will still be producing little bastards
or becoming pregnant by "artificial means", whether gay marriage is around
or not.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 04:38:14 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here.
Maybe for good reason?
Can anyone help me out?
You can help yourself by conceding that your assertions are subjective
and baseless.
655321
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 04:33:09 PM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
message news:aFHVe.550$7x4.424@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more
children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much
elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here.
Maybe for good reason?
Can anyone help me out?
You can help yourself by conceding that your assertions
are subjective and baseless.
655321
Actually, his *observations* are objective and
based in reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 06:03:57 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pAHVe.3587$Ap4.330712@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:aFHVe.550$7x4.424@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here.
Maybe for good reason?
Can anyone help me out?
You can help yourself by conceding that your assertions are subjective
and baseless.
655321
Actually, his *observations* are objective and
based in reality.
Hardly.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 09:00:43 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3op46qF6ti0sU1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pAHVe.3587$Ap4.330712@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
message
news:aFHVe.550$7x4.424@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more
children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much
elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here.
Maybe for good reason?
Can anyone help me out?
You can help yourself by conceding that your assertions
are subjective and baseless.
655321
Actually, his *observations* are objective and
based in reality.
Hardly.
Oooooo. A challenge from someone numbering
itself.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing -
Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 08:57:37 PM |
|
|
On 2005-09-13 19:00:43 -0700, "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3op46qF6ti0sU1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pAHVe.3587$Ap4.330712@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"655321" < > wrote in message
news:aFHVe.550$7x4.424@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here.
Maybe for good reason?
Can anyone help me out?
You can help yourself by conceding that your assertions are subjective
and baseless.
655321
Actually, his *observations* are objective and
based in reality.
Hardly.
Oooooo. A challenge from someone numbering
itself.
Lack of response noted.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 08:41:30 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can anyone help me out?
GAry Eickmeier
Forbidding or allowing same-sex marriage will neither result in more or
less children being raised by their biological parents. Allowing
same-sex marriage, however, will get more children into stable foster
homes. :-)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 08:03:27 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Further questions:
A. If the goal is to maximize the number of children being raised by
their biological parents, then why not ban marriage to those who can't
or won't have biological children? It seems to me that the rationale
behind banning same-sex marriage would apply here, too.
B. What evidence is there to support the assertion that the
legalization of same-sex marriage would produce a *significant*
increase in the number of children who would end up being raised by
non-biological parents?
C. What is so bad about children being raised by their non-biological
parents that it outweighs the good that would be done by fostering the
formation of long-term same-sex relationships (which, I believe, the
recognition of same-sex marriage would accomplish) ?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can anyone help me out?
GAry Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 08:25:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:49:42 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
How does forbidding same-sex marriage result in more children being
raised by their biological parents (I asked as much elswhere in this
thread, so no need to repeat your reply)?
Thank you so much. I am at my wits' end here. Can anyone help me out?
Yes. Go to the butcher, and buy 2 kilo's of sheep's brains. To assist
your own.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 02:36:10 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
That's very poetic, but not very useful.
Marriage is a human institution, created to serve human needs.
Which humans? THe parents - oops, scratch that - the adults, or the
children?
Both.
You may well believe that "the essential truth, meaning, and purpose of
marriage to make that real and natural opposition and biological
complementarity a virtuous commitment between *a* man and *a* woman
that fosters the natural family", but that simple belief constitutes
neither well-reasoned argument nor evidence.
*I* believe that marriage exists as an inducement towards the formation
of stable families, stable families which offer social benefits that
include an environment amenable to the raising of children.
What children? Whose children?
The children which families raise, children that could be solely theirs
(biologically speaking), adopted, the product of the genetic material
of only one of the family members (product of previous marriage,
artificial insemination, etc.).
What's of uppermost importance is that children be raised in a loving,
nurturing, supportive home, regardless of their biological relationship
to those who are doing the raising.
That said, I suspect the vast majority of children will be the
biological offspring of the parents who are raising them.
I really, truly don't understand what you're concerned about.
As such, the inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution would,
in a like manner, act as an inducement towards the formation of stable
families, and offer an environment amenable to the raising of children.
"Homosexual marriage" is, literally, an
impossibility.
It is if you define marriage this way. You are certainly free to do so,
of course, but it is a definition you are choosing to make, rather than
reflecting some innate nature of marriage, as you seem to claim.
I will point out one last time that the difference between a normal
marriage and a homosexual marriage is that with the former the children
will be raised by their actual, natural parents.
And my point is that "the actual parents" are the ones who do the
raising, not the biological parents (though they are usually one and
the same).
Why does it matter that the parents raising a child are not its
biological parents? Why is this such a big deal? (See below)
Homosexuals cannot reproduce on their own, and so they must seek artificial
means of procreation.
Yes... just like mixed-sex couples who can't or won't reproduce
directly have been doing for decades.
The resulting child would not be the natural child of this couple, and may be
deprived of its chance of even knowing who the parents are.
Yes.
My main point is that this may matter a great deal to a human being, helping
to define who he or she is.
Yes, it may. And? You see this as being sufficient reason for denying
the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? I don't.
Therefore, if you consider the needs of the children involved, gay
marriage should not be allowed to happen.
The missing piece of your argument is when you defend your assertion
that the fact that those same-sex couples who choose to raise children,
and who will do so via adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination,
etc., will therefore result in children being harmed in some way.
You haven't given me convincing reasoning, let alone evidence, to
support this assertion.
Also, your objection to same-sex marriage should, if you are being
consistent, also apply to mixed-sex marrage where the couple can't or
choose not to raise their own biological children. Would you outlaw
marriage in these cases, given that you have an equivalent situation to
that you object to with same-sex marriage?
Also, if same-sex marriage were made legal tomorrow (as it has been in
Massachussets, Canada, Spain, and elsewhere), do you really expect to
see a flood of children being produced by those methods you find
unacceptable? I don't think that is a reasonable expectation.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 08:45:24 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main point is that this may matter a great deal to a human being, helping
to define who he or she is.
Yes, it may. And? You see this as being sufficient reason for denying
the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? I don't.
Yes.
Therefore, if you consider the needs of the children involved, gay
marriage should not be allowed to happen.
The missing piece of your argument is when you defend your assertion
that the fact that those same-sex couples who choose to raise children,
and who will do so via adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination,
etc., will therefore result in children being harmed in some way.
I think I see the problem here. You are thinking I am saying that some
HARM will come to children raised by non-biological parents, like they
will beat them or something. No, I am saying that just the fact of their
being born not knowing who their parents are could be undesirable,
especially if you PLAN on such a situation or system.
You haven't given me convincing reasoning, let alone evidence, to
support this assertion.
Also, your objection to same-sex marriage should, if you are being
consistent, also apply to mixed-sex marrage where the couple can't or
choose not to raise their own biological children. Would you outlaw
marriage in these cases, given that you have an equivalent situation to
that you object to with same-sex marriage?
Also, if same-sex marriage were made legal tomorrow (as it has been in
Massachussets, Canada, Spain, and elsewhere), do you really expect to
see a flood of children being produced by those methods you find
unacceptable? I don't think that is a reasonable expectation.
I do. It would be the only way they can have their own children. My
statement was that they will not stop at adoption.
"Sweetie, come here for a minute. Mommy wants to talk to you. Remember
how I always told you your daddy's name was Art? Well, it stands for
artificial insemination, and I can't tell you who he was, but I can show
you his specs. He was blond, over six feet tall, and of Norwegian
descent. So do you have any questions for mommy?"
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 04:20:55 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UaqVe.62657$p_1.62419@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main point is that this may matter a great deal to a human being,
helping
to define who he or she is.
Yes, it may. And? You see this as being sufficient reason for denying
the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? I don't.
Yes.
Therefore, if you consider the needs of the children involved, gay
marriage should not be allowed to happen.
The missing piece of your argument is when you defend your assertion
that the fact that those same-sex couples who choose to raise children,
and who will do so via adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination,
etc., will therefore result in children being harmed in some way.
I think I see the problem here. You are thinking I am saying that some
HARM will come to children raised by non-biological parents, like they
will beat them or something. No, I am saying that just the fact of their
being born not knowing who their parents are could be undesirable,
especially if you PLAN on such a situation or system.
Then you must be for banning adoption by unfertile couple then, right?
You haven't given me convincing reasoning, let alone evidence, to
support this assertion.
Also, your objection to same-sex marriage should, if you are being
consistent, also apply to mixed-sex marrage where the couple can't or
choose not to raise their own biological children. Would you outlaw
marriage in these cases, given that you have an equivalent situation to
that you object to with same-sex marriage?
Also, if same-sex marriage were made legal tomorrow (as it has been in
Massachussets, Canada, Spain, and elsewhere), do you really expect to
see a flood of children being produced by those methods you find
unacceptable? I don't think that is a reasonable expectation.
I do. It would be the only way they can have their own children. My
statement was that they will not stop at adoption.
So what? Does it really matter if the child is raised in a loving
environment?
"Sweetie, come here for a minute. Mommy wants to talk to you. Remember how
I always told you your daddy's name was Art? Well, it stands for
artificial insemination, and I can't tell you who he was, but I can show
you his specs. He was blond, over six feet tall, and of Norwegian descent.
So do you have any questions for mommy?"
Dude, heterosexual couples do this all the time (sperm/egg donors). I have
friend of mine that donated her eggs in order to reduce the fees of invitro.
Why does this bother you do much? Hate to break it to you, but just because
you think you would have been totally fucked up not knowing all your bio
information doesn't mean it's the case for all or even the majority of
people who are conceived in this manner.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 11:11:13 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> said:
<...>
I think I see the problem here. You are thinking I am saying that some
HARM will come to children raised by non-biological parents, like they
will beat them or something. No, I am saying that just the fact of their
being born not knowing who their parents are could be undesirable,
<...>
Why?
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
