| 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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 12:55:17 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
At first you offered promotion of procreation. But as Scalia pointed
out, the infertile and elderly nix that idea. But then you clarified,
you weren't talking about "if marriage then children", but rather "if
children than marriage". Thus according to you, we need to forbid
same-sex marriage in order to keep children from being raised out of
wedlock. You have totally lost me how forbidding same-sex marriage
encourages children to be raised within wedlock.
Follow me closely now Josh: No homosexual marriage = only normal
marriage. Normal marriage = wedlock.
Why does "no homosexual marriage = only normal marriage?" Because you
say so?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 10:26:54 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
At first you offered promotion of procreation. But as Scalia pointed
out, the infertile and elderly nix that idea. But then you clarified,
you weren't talking about "if marriage then children", but rather "if
children than marriage". Thus according to you, we need to forbid
same-sex marriage in order to keep children from being raised out of
wedlock. You have totally lost me how forbidding same-sex marriage
encourages children to be raised within wedlock.
Follow me closely now Josh: No homosexual marriage = only normal
marriage. Normal marriage = wedlock.
A slur that same-sex marriage is not normal is not a logical argument.
But even assuming you can offer a logical argument that same-sex
marriage is less than optimal for raising children (with opposite-sex
marriage being optimal), I still don't see how forbidding same-sex
marriage encourages children to be raised within the optimal setting.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 01:58:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
A slur that same-sex marriage is not normal is not a logical argument.
But even assuming you can offer a logical argument that same-sex
marriage is less than optimal for raising children (with opposite-sex
marriage being optimal), I still don't see how forbidding same-sex
marriage encourages children to be raised within the optimal setting.
I know you don't.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 07:55:32 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
A slur that same-sex marriage is not normal is not a logical argument.
But even assuming you can offer a logical argument that same-sex
marriage is less than optimal for raising children (with opposite-sex
marriage being optimal), I still don't see how forbidding same-sex
marriage encourages children to be raised within the optimal setting.
I know you don't.
You'd rather them not be raised by loving individuals at all.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 02:03:56 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
A slur that same-sex marriage is not normal is not a logical argument.
But even assuming you can offer a logical argument that same-sex
marriage is less than optimal for raising children (with opposite-sex
marriage being optimal), I still don't see how forbidding same-sex
marriage encourages children to be raised within the optimal setting.
I know you don't.
Apparently you don't either, since you are unable to articulate how it
would happen. All you have is claim without one shred of evidence to
back it up.
Josh Rsoenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 05:58:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:17:56 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vmLUe.49992$p_1.40514@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
in message
news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the children.
The natural complementarity and unitive bond
precede (hierarchically if not chronologically)
procreation. This is consistent with and
perfectly suited to the uniqueness of each
individual. "Group marriages" are, like
"gay marriages", an impossibility.
Congradulations on demonstrating you're a lying sack of dogshit and
ignorant to boot.
Children
are best kept far away from you.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 08:43:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:17:56 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vmLUe.49992$p_1.40514@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
in message
news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the children.
The natural complementarity and unitive bond
precede (hierarchically if not chronologically)
procreation. This is consistent with and
perfectly suited to the uniqueness of each
individual. "Group marriages" are, like
"gay marriages", an impossibility. Children
are naturally the result of *a* man and *a*
woman, and marriage is the virtuous union
of *a* man and *a* woman. That is the natural
moral foundation of our civilization, and its
product is the natural family.
Talk about a load of pretentious crap, ignorance posing as scholary
thought.
McFly, various cultures, including the Polynesians and parts of India
and China, had stable and affluent societies for years with group
marriages.
Just because it doesn't exist in your backward little village doesn't
mean it doesn't exist, and just because it makes you squeamish doesn't
mean it's against the laws of the universe.
A "group marriage" or a "gay marriage" does
not exist. Much like 2 + 2 = 5 does not
exist. A "group marriage" or a "gay marriage"
is an attempt to make things (promiscuity,
sodomy) that will always be vice into
virtue. It can't be done.
Like most postmodern fantasies, they are
attacks, first and foremost, on reason and
its necessary correlate, meaning.
"'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: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 08:43:30 AM |
|
|
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message news:lvc8i196irnmiquvc08a9ls7ilts0utv0i@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:17:56 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:vmLUe.49992$p_1.40514@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
wrote
in message
news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the
children.
The natural complementarity and unitive bond
precede (hierarchically if not chronologically)
procreation. This is consistent with and
perfectly suited to the uniqueness of each
individual. "Group marriages" are, like
"gay marriages", an impossibility. Children
are naturally the result of *a* man and *a*
woman, and marriage is the virtuous union
of *a* man and *a* woman. That is the natural
moral foundation of our civilization, and its
product is the natural family.
Talk about a load of pretentious crap, ignorance posing as
scholary
thought.
Yeah, it was a little too much for you, but then
simple sentences and facts are too. So should
everyone just keep things at a level you
understand, that is to say at the level of
nonsense? Hardly.
McFly, various cultures, including the Polynesians and
parts of India
and China, had stable and affluent societies for years
with group
marriages.
What a strange coincidence that Western society
is neither Polynesian, Indian, or Chinese, and
that our clarified social institutions are
based on our own ancient and clarified
understanding of reality, which is based
in clarified reason and meaning.
In other words, T'baloo, we have it right,
i.e., correctly ordered, by reason, through
meaning, in truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gall" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 09:37:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:43:30 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message news:lvc8i196irnmiquvc08a9ls7ilts0utv0i@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:17:56 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:vmLUe.49992$p_1.40514@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
wrote
in message
news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the
children.
The natural complementarity and unitive bond
precede (hierarchically if not chronologically)
procreation. This is consistent with and
perfectly suited to the uniqueness of each
individual. "Group marriages" are, like
"gay marriages", an impossibility. Children
are naturally the result of *a* man and *a*
woman, and marriage is the virtuous union
of *a* man and *a* woman. That is the natural
moral foundation of our civilization, and its
product is the natural family.
Talk about a load of pretentious crap, ignorance posing as
scholary
thought.
Yeah, it was a little too much for you, but then
simple sentences and facts are too. So should
everyone just keep things at a level you
understand, that is to say at the level of
nonsense? Hardly.
McFly, various cultures, including the Polynesians and
parts of India
and China, had stable and affluent societies for years
with group
marriages.
What a strange coincidence that Western society
is neither Polynesian, Indian, or Chinese, and
that our clarified social institutions are
based on our own ancient and clarified
understanding of reality, which is based
in clarified reason and meaning.
In other words, T'baloo, we have it right,
i.e., correctly ordered, by reason, through
meaning, in truth.
perhaps Jamieson is talking about a group marriage between himself and
his wife, and his alternate persona, Greywolf the Wanderer....
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 08:40:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:02:19 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the children.
One of my secondary partners has a developmentally disabled child.
Because of her extended poly family, she has never wanted for
babysitters, help cleaning, or just a sympathetic shoulder when things
get rough.
The Mouse, on the other hand, has more aunts and uncles than she can
count, all of whim see her as part of their family, and she wraps us
all around her little finger.
Tell me, would you fly 1,200 miles because a friend needed help
cleaning their apartment? I did that for my partner. Because we are
a family.
--
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: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 08:42:50 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:kg27i11vun31io4lrbethi8v9jv84b197p@4ax.com:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:02:19 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the children.
One of my secondary partners has a developmentally disabled child.
Because of her extended poly family, she has never wanted for
babysitters, help cleaning, or just a sympathetic shoulder when things
get rough.
The Mouse, on the other hand, has more aunts and uncles than she can
count, all of whim see her as part of their family, and she wraps us
all around her little finger.
Tell me, would you fly 1,200 miles because a friend needed help
cleaning their apartment? I did that for my partner. Because we are
a family.
But it "bothers" him, so it must be wrong.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 04:35:38 PM |
|
|
On 11 Sep 2005 01:42:50 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:kg27i11vun31io4lrbethi8v9jv84b197p@4ax.com:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:02:19 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the children.
One of my secondary partners has a developmentally disabled child.
Because of her extended poly family, she has never wanted for
babysitters, help cleaning, or just a sympathetic shoulder when things
get rough.
The Mouse, on the other hand, has more aunts and uncles than she can
count, all of whim see her as part of their family, and she wraps us
all around her little finger.
Tell me, would you fly 1,200 miles because a friend needed help
cleaning their apartment? I did that for my partner. Because we are
a family.
But it "bothers" him, so it must be wrong.
And such ignorance and bigotry on his part bothers others. Perhaps he
could volunteer to cease breathing and make the world a better place.
--
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: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 04:37:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:02:19 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
I could take a wild stab, Martin: It is for the children.
Not at all. It is merely to satisfy your homophobia.
Children are your [bad] excuse.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 08:37:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:46:22 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:05:14 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
in
message news:4sk5i1lpr3qr314etpnb1gntjg5guvihsr@4ax.com...
I have no problem with group marriages.
You exist off the deep end. And that is a fact.
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
Don't have a clue, do you?
I'm polyamorus. My wife of 14 years and I are part of an extended
family that corsses the world at this point. I have people I consider
to be family on every continent (except Antarctica) and in many
states. This isn't about sex, its about family.
Something you wouldn't understand.
--
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: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 07:59:40 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:0d27i1dq2uo7bqf879dj9ns01i3g5ec23j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:46:22 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
in
message news:2kr6i1p90accrn8morunfa7jkfrniqqjrn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:05:14 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
wrote
in
message
news:4sk5i1lpr3qr314etpnb1gntjg5guvihsr@4ax.com...
I have no problem with group marriages.
You exist off the deep end. And that is a fact.
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
Don't have a clue, do you?
Well, I have the biggest clue of all: that's
it's pointless exposing you to the truth.
I'm polyamorus. My wife of 14 years and I are part of an
extended
family that corsses the world at this point.
I feel sorry for both of you. But mostly for
your wife.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:54:06 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
I feel sorry for both of you. But mostly for
your wife.
Thanks for your support, Martin. Now there are two of us!
It's not easy to get inside the liberal mind, but this thread has been a
revelation to me. I suppose the "anything goes" mentality simply cannot
conceive of the consequences of the various possible systems of
producing babies or forming families. They just are not concerned with
moral or ethical issues.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:22:26 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:yqYUe.25265$4i6.298@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
I feel sorry for both of you. But mostly for
your wife.
Thanks for your support, Martin. Now there are two of us!
It's not easy to get inside the liberal mind, but this
thread has been a revelation to me. I suppose the
"anything goes" mentality simply cannot conceive of the
consequences of the various possible systems of producing
babies or forming families. They just are not concerned
with moral or ethical issues.
The "liberal mind" is a process that leads to
the abdication of mind.
Once they deny the meaning in things, they
have no capacity to get to the truth, and
lacking that capacity, they can simply
declare anything they want about anything
at all.
If you watch them closely around here, you'll
see that they eventually get around to
denying facts that sit squarely and clearly
in front of them.
There are philosophical issues, miscues
really, that lie at the root of all this
denial, but they've lost the capacity, or
abandoned it, to see or hear or understand
those issues.
That's why (getting back to the topic) it
is necessary to pass the Federal Marriage
Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 05:59:54 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:yqYUe.25265$4i6.298@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
I feel sorry for both of you. But mostly for
your wife.
Thanks for your support, Martin. Now there are two of us!
It's not easy to get inside the liberal mind, but this
thread has been a revelation to me. I suppose the
"anything goes" mentality simply cannot conceive of the
consequences of the various possible systems of producing
babies or forming families. They just are not concerned
with moral or ethical issues.
The "liberal mind" is a process that leads to
the abdication of mind.
Do you labor under the delusion that each and every person you consider
to be "a liberal" thinks the same way, for the same reasons, on every
issue? You certainly seem to be implying as much.
I've no doubt that you would consider me to be "a liberal". My mind is
quite intact, thank you very much.
Once they deny the meaning in things, they
have no capacity to get to the truth, and
lacking that capacity, they can simply
declare anything they want about anything
at all.
Perhaps your problem is that you only recognize one and only "meaning
of things" (which, no doubt, just happens to be the same meaning you're
personally fond of).
If there's a specific example you have in mind, please, share it with
us. I very much doubt you'll find me incapable of being able to "get to
the truth", though you may not agree with my estimation of where that
truth lies.
If you watch them closely around here, you'll
see that they eventually get around to
denying facts that sit squarely and clearly
in front of them.
Examples, please?
There are philosophical issues, miscues
really, that lie at the root of all this
denial, but they've lost the capacity, or
abandoned it, to see or hear or understand
those issues.
That's why (getting back to the topic) it
is necessary to pass the Federal Marriage
Amendment.
You make many assertions, but the reasoning with which you support
these assertions lacks intellectual rigor or evidentiary weight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:05:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:59:40 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:0d27i1dq2uo7bqf879dj9ns01i3g5ec23j@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
Don't have a clue, do you?
Well, I have the biggest clue of all: that's
it's pointless exposing you to the truth.
Then try telling me what "the truth" is, in your view. All I'm
getting out of you is one liners.
I'm polyamorus. My wife of 14 years and I are part of an
extended
family that crosses the world at this point.
I feel sorry for both of you. But mostly for
your wife.
Why, because I have loved ones across the face of the Earth? That I
can find myself in almost anyplace in America and know there is a warm
bed and hot meal there for the asking?
Let me explain how this works. I'm a cancer survivor. During my
illness, my family took care of me and my wife. We received help on
every level imaginable, from visits to being given a car. People flew
in from Australia to make sure we were OK.
Not one person in my family is Christian. I like it that way. We're
much better to each other, and more giving, than any Christian I've
ever met.
Now, why exactly do you feel sorry for my wife?
--
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: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:11:09 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:s5l8i1pfl96mjj00ql70bh9kru44l1a5f8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:59:40 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
in
message news:0d27i1dq2uo7bqf879dj9ns01i3g5ec23j@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional
marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
Don't have a clue, do you?
Well, I have the biggest clue of all: that's
it's pointless exposing you to the truth.
Then try telling me what "the truth" is, in your view.
All I'm
getting out of you is one liners.
Look for it elsewhere in this thread. I'm not that
disposed to opening another discussion with
another nut.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 01:57:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:11:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:s5l8i1pfl96mjj00ql70bh9kru44l1a5f8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:59:40 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
in
message news:0d27i1dq2uo7bqf879dj9ns01i3g5ec23j@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional
marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
Don't have a clue, do you?
Well, I have the biggest clue of all: that's
it's pointless exposing you to the truth.
Then try telling me what "the truth" is, in your view.
All I'm
getting out of you is one liners.
Look for it elsewhere in this thread. I'm not that
disposed to opening another discussion with
another nut.
Your utter inability to define, let alone defend, your position is
noted and laughed at.
--
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: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 04:18:48 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
message news:jdv8i1d2gcmeakmpb0l98or3uo247k0guv@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:11:09 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
in
message news:s5l8i1pfl96mjj00ql70bh9kru44l1a5f8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:59:40 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
wrote
in
message
news:0d27i1dq2uo7bqf879dj9ns01i3g5ec23j@4ax.com...
OK, explain to me why a group of consenting adults
shouldn't be able
to form a legal bond similar to a traditional
marriage.
Figure it out for yourself.
Don't have a clue, do you?
Well, I have the biggest clue of all: that's
it's pointless exposing you to the truth.
Then try telling me what "the truth" is, in your view.
All I'm
getting out of you is one liners.
Look for it elsewhere in this thread. I'm not that
disposed to opening another discussion with
another nut.
Your utter inability to define, let alone defend, your
position is
noted and laughed at.
I've defined and defended my postion, literally,
dozens of times. I just don't want to engage
with a nut like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 08:20:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:18:48 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Your utter inability to define, let alone defend, your
position is
noted and laughed at.
I've defined and defended my postion, literally,
dozens of times. I just don't want to engage
with a nut like you.
And how many years have you been married?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 02:17:31 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Why, because I have loved ones across the face of the Earth? That I
can find myself in almost anyplace in America and know there is a warm
bed and hot meal there for the asking?
Let me explain how this works. I'm a cancer survivor. During my
illness, my family took care of me and my wife. We received help on
every level imaginable, from visits to being given a car. People flew
in from Australia to make sure we were OK.
Not one person in my family is Christian. I like it that way. We're
much better to each other, and more giving, than any Christian I've
ever met.
Now, why exactly do you feel sorry for my wife?
Are you putting us on with this story? We thought you were talking about
polygamy. You are just talking about a lot of friends around the world.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 08:08:28 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
Why, because I have loved ones across the face of the Earth? That I
can find myself in almost anyplace in America and know there is a warm
bed and hot meal there for the asking?
Let me explain how this works. I'm a cancer survivor. During my
illness, my family took care of me and my wife. We received help on
every level imaginable, from visits to being given a car. People flew
in from Australia to make sure we were OK.
Not one person in my family is Christian. I like it that way. We're
much better to each other, and more giving, than any Christian I've
ever met.
Now, why exactly do you feel sorry for my wife?
Are you putting us on with this story? We thought you were talking about
polygamy.
....which is allowed in the Bible...
You are just talking about a lot of friends around the world.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
Friends can be considered family.
--
****************************************************
* 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 03:00:35 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
Why, because I have loved ones across the face of the Earth? That I
can find myself in almost anyplace in America and know there is a warm
bed and hot meal there for the asking?
Let me explain how this works. I'm a cancer survivor. During my
illness, my family took care of me and my wife. We received help on
every level imaginable, from visits to being given a car. People flew
in from Australia to make sure we were OK.
Not one person in my family is Christian. I like it that way. We're
much better to each other, and more giving, than any Christian I've
ever met.
Now, why exactly do you feel sorry for my wife?
Are you putting us on with this story? We thought you were talking about
polygamy. You are just talking about a lot of friends around the world.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
You've never heard of long-distance relationships, or cases where a
husband and wife live apart, but still consider themselves to be
happily married?
I suggest you go to http://www.polyamory.org, and take a look at their
FAQ. This might clear up any questions you have concerning the nature
of polyamory.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 08:55:13 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
You've never heard of long-distance relationships, or cases where a
husband and wife live apart, but still consider themselves to be
happily married?
I suggest you go to http://www.polyamory.org, and take a look at their
FAQ. This might clear up any questions you have concerning the nature
of polyamory.
You mean this guy is fucking his way around the world, and using
"polyamory" as his excuse? Great work if you can get it.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
13 Sep 2005 01:48:36 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
You've never heard of long-distance relationships, or cases where a
husband and wife live apart, but still consider themselves to be
happily married?
I suggest you go to http://www.polyamory.org, and take a look at their
FAQ. This might clear up any questions you have concerning the nature
of polyamory.
You mean this guy is fucking his way around the world, and using
"polyamory" as his excuse? Great work if you can get it.
Let me guess: you didn't follow that link, you didn't read the FAQs, so
you're just going to pretend it's "all about sex", and completely
ignore the relationship. Do you think marriage is just about the sex? I
certainly don't.
I'd also suggest that you show some basic respect. I don't hear him
dissing *your* marriage or relationships. Show some class.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 09:57:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:55:13 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Michael Altarriba wrote:
You've never heard of long-distance relationships, or cases where a
husband and wife live apart, but still consider themselves to be
happily married?
I suggest you go to http://www.polyamory.org, and take a look at their
FAQ. This might clear up any questions you have concerning the nature
of polyamory.
You mean this guy is fucking his way around the world, and using
"polyamory" as his excuse? Great work if you can get it.
LOL! Man, they always focus on the sex.
Gary, one of the side effects of Stage IV-B Hodgkins is a severely
depressed sex drive. I am hardly " fucking my way around the world."
At this point, I could barely care about fucking my way around the
block.
But intimacy is part of polyamory, and I'm told I'm a great snuggler.
--
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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 09:54:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:17:31 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
Why, because I have loved ones across the face of the Earth? That I
can find myself in almost anyplace in America and know there is a warm
bed and hot meal there for the asking?
Let me explain how this works. I'm a cancer survivor. During my
illness, my family took care of me and my wife. We received help on
every level imaginable, from visits to being given a car. People flew
in from Australia to make sure we were OK.
Not one person in my family is Christian. I like it that way. We're
much better to each other, and more giving, than any Christian I've
ever met.
Now, why exactly do you feel sorry for my wife?
Are you putting us on with this story? We thought you were talking about
polygamy. You are just talking about a lot of friends around the world.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
I also sleep with many of these people. And we consider each other to
be family, not just friends. My wife and two secondaries often
conspire to get me great birthday and Solstice gifts.
I've neve had a friend whi would fly half-way around the world to take
someone out for dinner.
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
