| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 02:19:14 PM |
| 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: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
08 Sep 2005 07:50:49 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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?
Pointing to the flaws of heterosexuals is probably not a very strong
position to take here. Why would anybody say, "look at those people, they
can't makeit work for them so we should take a shot at it," and even think
that they will be better than those who failed?
Frankly, we as a society let too many people that have no chance of getting
along get married, then we let people that have gotten married get divorced
too easily just because they feel the going is getting too rough for them.
Pointing to the weakness in others is not reason for gays to marry.
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.
This is the root of the discussion for you? To get back at the religious
right for trying against all odds to maintain some semblance of morality in
society? That's a ***** poor reason to rejoice.
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.
That's pure *****. Nobody "needs" to discriminate against something.
Indeed, it appears that you have a need to discriminate against people that
have religion. You said it yourself.
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?
It astonishes me that we are a Democratic Society until society votes
overwhelmingly against your particular pet project, then you want
legislative action to over rule that which society voted for or against --
as the case may be, and barring legislative action in your favor, you seek
the courts to give you a ruling and impose on the Democratic Society that
which the Democratic Society specifically voted that they wanted or didn't
want -- again, as the case may be. We are only a Democratic Society when
society gives you what you want. As soon as you don't get what you want, you
set about to dismantle the democracy via the legislature or the courts.
It isn't just gay rights, either. Californians have voted on a host of
initiatives that presume to reflect the will of a democratic society, and
each time somebody turns to the courts to seek rulings that social order can
not go that way, whichever way "that way" happens to be. We don't have
anarchy in the streets, we have anarchy in the halls of justice. Why even
pretend to have democracy when the result of democracy are over turned more
often that upheld? The game of democracy is one where one side makes a
proposal, and everybody votes that the proposal is accepted or rejected. No
matter which way the vote goes, one side isn't going to be happy and it will
turn to the courts, which in turn all too often overturn the vote. Why vote?
Why not just send all proposals to the court for rejection and save
everybody time and money?
Am I the only one that notices this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 06:05:50 AM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
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?
Pointing to the flaws of heterosexuals is probably not a very strong
position to take here.
It sure points up the hypocrisy.
Frankly, we as a society let too many people that have no chance of getting
along get married,
And society could stop them how?
If they could stop them, what would be the percentage of kids born out
of wedlock? It's already about 30%
then we let people that have gotten married get divorced
too easily just because they feel the going is getting too rough for them.
Pointing to the weakness in others is not reason for gays to marry.
It sure points up the fact that heterosexuals don't feel that marriage
has all that much sanctity.
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.
This is the root of the discussion for you? To get back at the religious
right for trying against all odds to maintain some semblance of morality in
society?
For imposing their sick morality on everyone else. (Any morality that
promotes hypocrisy is sick).
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 04:51:23 PM |
|
|
In article <r992i1tu67287phgommqb2qpamjq1ah8kt@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
Pointing to the flaws of heterosexuals is probably not a very strong
position to take here.
It sure points up the hypocrisy.
Frankly, we as a society let too many people that have no chance of getting
along get married,
And society could stop them how?
If they could stop them, what would be the percentage of kids born out
of wedlock? It's already about 30%
then we let people that have gotten married get divorced
too easily just because they feel the going is getting too rough for them.
Pointing to the weakness in others is not reason for gays to marry.
It sure points up the fact that heterosexuals don't feel that marriage
has all that much sanctity.
Plus, there is no need to show any "reason for gays to marry" whatsoever.
If Jeff wants to prevent two grownups from doing something they'd very
much like to, then the thing needed is for him to demonstrate that they
should not do that thing.
And I`ve read several thousand Usenet posts arguing that position,
without yet coming across one that is anything other htan a variant on
"I don't like it/ God doesn't like it".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 06:19:30 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <r992i1tu67287phgommqb2qpamjq1ah8kt@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier < > writes:
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
Pointing to the flaws of heterosexuals is probably not a very strong
position to take here.
It sure points up the hypocrisy.
Frankly, we as a society let too many people that have no chance of getting
along get married,
And society could stop them how?
If they could stop them, what would be the percentage of kids born out
of wedlock? It's already about 30%
then we let people that have gotten married get divorced
too easily just because they feel the going is getting too rough for them.
Pointing to the weakness in others is not reason for gays to marry.
It sure points up the fact that heterosexuals don't feel that marriage
has all that much sanctity.
Plus, there is no need to show any "reason for gays to marry" whatsoever.
If Jeff wants to prevent two grownups from doing something they'd very
much like to, then the thing needed is for him to demonstrate that they
should not do that thing.
His argument for that is obviously the invocation of his personal
morality as being The Right One (tm).
And I`ve read several thousand Usenet posts arguing that position,
without yet coming across one that is anything other htan a variant on
"I don't like it/ God doesn't like it".
The obvious question is whether there is any sort of morality that has
any basis other than "I don't like it/ God doesn't like it" at some
level of abstraction.
After all, even the Golden Rule invokes "I don't like it".
Any invocation of "ill", "harm", "bad" or "evil" has to invoke one or
the other of those two.
"Do only good" avoids them directly, but only by begging for a
definition of "good" that is other than a negation of one of those two
phrases.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 06:17:28 AM |
|
|
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 01:03:30 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126246648.772333.151940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
TCross
The state, federal or local government should not be involved in marriage
what so ever. It is a long held religious tradition and it should stay that
way and the government should not be involved in it at all. No deductions,
no exceptions and no involvement, PERIOD!
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 03:06:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:03:30 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126246648.772333.151940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
TCross
The state, federal or local government should not be involved in marriage
what so ever. It is a long held religious tradition and it should stay that
way and the government should not be involved in it at all. No deductions,
no exceptions and no involvement, PERIOD!
So how do us non-religious types get married? Join the church or
else?
"'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: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 04:07:18 PM |
|
|
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:3793i1pjj0qetu4gij98ebalj0ic25tk1p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:03:30 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126246648.772333.151940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
TCross
The state, federal or local government should not be involved in marriage
what so ever. It is a long held religious tradition and it should stay
that
way and the government should not be involved in it at all. No
deductions,
no exceptions and no involvement, PERIOD!
So how do us non-religious types get married? Join the church or
else?
Why would you need to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 04:41:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:07:18 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:3793i1pjj0qetu4gij98ebalj0ic25tk1p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:03:30 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126246648.772333.151940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
TCross
The state, federal or local government should not be involved in marriage
what so ever. It is a long held religious tradition and it should stay
that
way and the government should not be involved in it at all. No
deductions,
no exceptions and no involvement, PERIOD!
So how do us non-religious types get married? Join the church or
else?
Why would you need to?
Love. Committment. Legal advantages. Social protections. Pretty
much the same reasons religionists have, only without the imaginary
cosmic sky muffin.
"'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: "Gall" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 11:11:34 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:41:15 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
only without the imaginary
cosmic sky muffin.
"imaginary cosmic sky muffin??" Like your goddess, Greywolf?
--
"I'd been drawn toward Wicca for many years, then one night She
pretty much came up and tapped me on the shoulder and said hello. Not
literally, but that's how it felt. I believe in the Goddess and the God
because I have felt Their touch... "
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Aug 12 1996,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/c7ca14e74a59cfb6?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1880 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 04:21:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:07:18 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:3793i1pjj0qetu4gij98ebalj0ic25tk1p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:03:30 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126246648.772333.151940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
TCross
The state, federal or local government should not be involved in marriage
what so ever. It is a long held religious tradition and it should stay
that
way and the government should not be involved in it at all. No
deductions,
no exceptions and no involvement, PERIOD!
So how do us non-religious types get married? Join the church or
else?
Why would you need to?
Same reason most people do these days: to avail themselves of the
legal, contractural, and tax advantages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 06:06:35 PM |
|
|
"1880 Dead" <zepp#22111880dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:vid3i1hpv0kgudg2vsd7sihhhvuuqbncl1@4ax.com...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:07:18 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:3793i1pjj0qetu4gij98ebalj0ic25tk1p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:03:30 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126246648.772333.151940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
TCross
The state, federal or local government should not be involved in
marriage
what so ever. It is a long held religious tradition and it should stay
that
way and the government should not be involved in it at all. No
deductions,
no exceptions and no involvement, PERIOD!
So how do us non-religious types get married? Join the church or
else?
Why would you need to?
Same reason most people do these days: to avail themselves of the
legal, contractural, and tax advantages.
Then you are either ignorant or you missed the point. With government
completely out of involvement in marriage there would be no legal,
contractual and tax advantages. That's why marriage should be strictly a
religious matter and if you are not religious there would be no need for you
to get married.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gall" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 11:23:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:06:32 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
So how do us non-religious types get married? Join the church or
else?
non-religious type? You??? Are you forsaking the goddess?
--
"Was raised in the church of England, bailed on that, spent a brief
time in high school as a born-again type, bailed on that, and
eventually came to think of myself as both Wiccan and were. I am
an animist, primarily -- I feel the presence of the Divine the best
when I am alone out in the woods somewhere -- preferably on a full
moon night, sharing a Sing with the brothers-in-fur. I am a
solitary practitioner of Wicca -- perhaps once or twice in a year I
get together with like-minded friends for a circle."
-- Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Sat, 12 Apr 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/1ae1e62e73150bd1?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 01:33:10 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
No, the root of the problem is the children.
It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father. A baby is not a possession, it is a human being, with a right to
know who he or she is, a right to know who the parents are and, if
possible, to be raised by those natural parents.
Gays are not going to be satisfied with adopting. They are going to
inseminate themselves, use donated eggs, surrogate mothers, or whatever
other unnatural means is necessary to get their "baby." Now imagine
growing up as that baby in a homosexual family, and suddenly realizing
that these people are not your real parents. You will want to know who
your real parents are, and you have a right to know. How would you like
to find out that you will never know who your father was, because he is
just an anonymous sperm from Vat 69? That your mother is really the lady
across the street? There have been a few cases already of gays who have
separated and had raging custody battles because one of them had nothing
to do with the procreation of the child.
Yes, heterosexual couples can resort to the same techniques for
conception, in extreme cases, which I'm not sure I agree with either.
But with gay marriage we would be institutionalizing a type of family
structure that can ONLY be possible with these artificial means of
conceiving human beings.
That is why it is wrong.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 04:39:28 PM |
|
|
That is why it is wrong.
So, in summary, children should only be birthed by their biological
parents? I don't understand why that matters to you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 09:01:38 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
No, the root of the problem is the children.
It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father. A baby is not a possession, it is a human being, with a right to
know who he or she is, a right to know who the parents are and, if
possible, to be raised by those natural parents.
Gays are not going to be satisfied with adopting. They are going to
inseminate themselves, use donated eggs, surrogate mothers, or whatever
other unnatural means is necessary to get their "baby." Now imagine
growing up as that baby in a homosexual family, and suddenly realizing
that these people are not your real parents. You will want to know who
your real parents are, and you have a right to know. How would you like
to find out that you will never know who your father was, because he is
just an anonymous sperm from Vat 69? That your mother is really the lady
across the street? There have been a few cases already of gays who have
separated and had raging custody battles because one of them had nothing
to do with the procreation of the child.
Yes, heterosexual couples can resort to the same techniques for
conception, in extreme cases, which I'm not sure I agree with either.
But with gay marriage we would be institutionalizing a type of family
structure that can ONLY be possible with these artificial means of
conceiving human beings.
That is why it is wrong.
Same with any post menopausal woman choosing to get married, or a woman
who has had a hysterectomy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 05:02:25 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
J Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...
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.
Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.
*That* is the root of the problem.
No, the root of the problem is the children.
Pardon me for saying so, but the first thing that came to my mind after
reading this was "won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!"
It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father.
Procreation is a part of marriage, but not an especially important one.
Many people that cannot procreate marry happily and legally, including
the infertile and the elderly.
A baby is not a possession, it is a human being, with a right to
know who he or she is, a right to know who the parents are and, if
possible, to be raised by those natural parents.
I couldn't agree less. Anyone that has reached puberty is capable of
conceiving a child, but most people aren't capable of raising it.
Biology has nothing to do with parenting.
Gays are not going to be satisfied with adopting. They are going to
inseminate themselves, use donated eggs, surrogate mothers, or whatever
other unnatural means is necessary to get their "baby." Now imagine
growing up as that baby in a homosexual family, and suddenly realizing
that these people are not your real parents.
As you point out later yet fail to point out now, this is identical to
the situation any adopted child could find themselves in. You don't
seem to have really acknowledged this. The distinction is important
because you could quite easily change the header of your argument to
"fertility clinics are eeeevil," drop the anti-gay marriage comments,
and continue on your way.
You will want to know who
your real parents are, and you have a right to know. How would you like
to find out that you will never know who your father was, because he is
just an anonymous sperm from Vat 69? That your mother is really the lady
across the street?
Again, that's an issue with artificial fertility clinics, not homosexual
marriage.
There have been a few cases already of gays who have
separated and had raging custody battles because one of them had nothing
to do with the procreation of the child.
Similar cases have been found with adoptive and remarried parents, of
course. Nothing you've written so far is in any way relevant.
Yes, heterosexual couples can resort to the same techniques for
conception, in extreme cases, which I'm not sure I agree with either.
How could you *possibly* "not agree" with such techniques? Polyester,
CAT scans, and the wheel aren't natural either. Do you take issue with
them, too?
But with gay marriage we would be institutionalizing a type of family
structure that can ONLY be possible with these artificial means of
conceiving human beings.
How is the style of procreation relevant? The only thing that matters
is children being raised in a loving, safe home environment with a
parent or parents that love and care for them. Obsessing about a
woo-woo having been in a wah-wah is just infantile.
That is why it is wrong.
You haven't even done a very good job of pointing out why fertility
clinics destroy families, let alone why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed
to raise children.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 05:25:35 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father.
Would you support legislation, even an amendment to the state constitution, that would
allow ONLY people with the capacity to procreate to get married? Should someone with a
vastectomy or a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation be banned forever from marriage?
Should marriages be automatically annulled if they become sterile? What if a couple
that is capable of reproducing uses contraception? Should their marriage license be
revoked if they do not procreate within, say, three years? Of course, adoptions would
not count, as the couple will never be the children's *real* mother and father. In
fact, it sounds like you are saying that adoptions and foster care should be banned
entirely.
After all, marriage is an institution for the procreation and raising of children in a
family that consists of their real mother and father.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 05:35:53 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4321C58F.107E0188@serv.net...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father.
Would you support legislation, even an amendment to the state
constitution, that would
allow ONLY people with the capacity to procreate to get married? Should
someone with a
vastectomy or a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation be banned forever from
marriage?
Should marriages be automatically annulled if they become sterile? What if
a couple
that is capable of reproducing uses contraception? Should their marriage
license be
revoked if they do not procreate within, say, three years? Of course,
adoptions would
not count, as the couple will never be the children's *real* mother and
father. In
fact, it sounds like you are saying that adoptions and foster care should
be banned
entirely.
Hey! As an adoptee, I resemble that remark ;)
As such, that *real* parent remark sort of stick in my craw. I've always
considered my *real* parents to be the people that raised me. My
*biological* parents are the ones that gave me life.
Sorry for the rant - Carry on ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 05:53:23 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4321C58F.107E0188@serv.net...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father.
Would you support legislation, even an amendment to the state
constitution, that would
allow ONLY people with the capacity to procreate to get married? Should
someone with a
vastectomy or a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation be banned forever from
marriage?
Should marriages be automatically annulled if they become sterile? What if
a couple
that is capable of reproducing uses contraception? Should their marriage
license be
revoked if they do not procreate within, say, three years? Of course,
adoptions would
not count, as the couple will never be the children's *real* mother and
father. In
fact, it sounds like you are saying that adoptions and foster care should
be banned
entirely.
Hey! As an adoptee, I resemble that remark ;)
As such, that *real* parent remark sort of stick in my craw. I've always
considered my *real* parents to be the people that raised me. My
*biological* parents are the ones that gave me life.
That is my point, dear ;-)
Sorry for the rant - Carry on ;)
I have some friends who are waiting for the Washington State Supreme Court to
rule on whether the state's ban on equal marriage is constitutional or not (the
Court has always issued rulings within 6 months of the hearing; it has been
longer than that already.) Should the Court end up endorsing the equal marriage
foes, whose sole argument was exactly the rhetoric used by Mr. Eickmeier, they
have an initiative all planned out that would ban all persons incapable of
procreating from being married in the state, make failure to disclose sterility
on a marriage license application a Class A misdemeanor and automatically annul
all marriages that have not resulted in offspring within 3 years of entering the
marriage or within three years of the passage of the initiative. An earlier
version would have also banned divorce for ANY reason if there were children
from the marriage, but the state constitution requires that initiatives have
only one subject, and they don't want the Court overturning it on a technicality
:-p
The short title of the initiative will be, "Should the State Supreme Court
ruling against gay marriage be enacted in to law?" THAT will get all the right
wingers to sign the petition, and then vote for the measure. <insert evil cackle
here>
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 06:33:05 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4321CC13.DFB8A319@serv.net...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4321C58F.107E0188@serv.net...
snip
Would you support legislation, even an amendment to the state
constitution, that would
allow ONLY people with the capacity to procreate to get married?
Should
someone with a
vastectomy or a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation be banned forever
from
marriage?
Should marriages be automatically annulled if they become sterile?
What if
a couple
that is capable of reproducing uses contraception? Should their
marriage
license be
revoked if they do not procreate within, say, three years? Of course,
adoptions would
not count, as the couple will never be the children's *real* mother
and
father. In
fact, it sounds like you are saying that adoptions and foster care
should
be banned
entirely.
Hey! As an adoptee, I resemble that remark ;)
As such, that *real* parent remark sort of stick in my craw. I've
always
considered my *real* parents to be the people that raised me. My
*biological* parents are the ones that gave me life.
That is my point, dear ;-)
Ah, well, there you go! ;)
Sorry for the rant - Carry on ;)
I have some friends who are waiting for the Washington State Supreme Court
to
rule on whether the state's ban on equal marriage is constitutional or not
(the
Court has always issued rulings within 6 months of the hearing; it has
been
longer than that already.) Should the Court end up endorsing the equal
marriage
foes, whose sole argument was exactly the rhetoric used by Mr. Eickmeier,
they
have an initiative all planned out that would ban all persons incapable of
procreating from being married in the state, make failure to disclose
sterility
on a marriage license application a Class A misdemeanor and automatically
annul
all marriages that have not resulted in offspring within 3 years of
entering the
marriage or within three years of the passage of the initiative. An
earlier
version would have also banned divorce for ANY reason if there were
children
from the marriage, but the state constitution requires that initiatives
have
only one subject, and they don't want the Court overturning it on a
technicality
Wow - That's some scary stuff. What would you do in the case of my *real*
parents who had no idea they couldn't conceive until several years of
marriage? What if you didn't want to have children right away? Damn :P
The short title of the initiative will be, "Should the State Supreme Court
ruling against gay marriage be enacted in to law?" THAT will get all the
right
wingers to sign the petition, and then vote for the measure. <insert evil
cackle
here>
Oh dear :)
--
------
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 |
09 Sep 2005 05:47:16 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
Hey! As an adoptee, I resemble that remark ;)
As such, that *real* parent remark sort of stick in my craw. I've always
considered my *real* parents to be the people that raised me. My
*biological* parents are the ones that gave me life.
Sorry for the rant - Carry on ;)
Could you please answer a couple of specific questions for me?
1. Have you had a desire to know who your bio parents are?
2. Is it possible for you to find out? Or were you conceived from an
anonymous donor in some way?
3. Does it matter to you the manner in which you were born?
Thanks,
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 06:29:56 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EUjUe.17131$4i6.9196@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Hey! As an adoptee, I resemble that remark ;)
As such, that *real* parent remark sort of stick in my craw. I've
always
considered my *real* parents to be the people that raised me. My
*biological* parents are the ones that gave me life.
Sorry for the rant - Carry on ;)
Could you please answer a couple of specific questions for me?
1. Have you had a desire to know who your bio parents are?
Yes. A little bit growing up, but moreso after I had a child of my own.
2. Is it possible for you to find out? Or were you conceived from an
anonymous donor in some way?
<chuckle> I was born 44 years ago; don't believe there was too much of that
"anonymous donor" thing going on back them. I have found my birthmother,
bio-grand parents, half-siblings, other relatives, as well as 200 years
worth of family history (on my birthmother's side) on ancestry.com. Don't
know too much on my birthdad's side (only have a first name and some vital
statistics) as my birthmom refuses to provide me with that information.
3. Does it matter to you the manner in which you were born?
What do you mean? Headfirst? Or do you mean does it bother me that I was
conceived out of wedlock and subsequently given up for adoption?
No, not really. I mean, it's not like I had anything to do with it and can
do anything about it now.
--
------
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 |
10 Sep 2005 01:26:52 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EUjUe.17131$4i6.9196@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
1. Have you had a desire to know who your bio parents are?
Yes. A little bit growing up, but moreso after I had a child of my own.
Thanks. It's only human.
2. Is it possible for you to find out? Or were you conceived from an
anonymous donor in some way?
<chuckle> I was born 44 years ago; don't believe there was too much of that
"anonymous donor" thing going on back them. I have found my birthmother,
bio-grand parents, half-siblings, other relatives, as well as 200 years
worth of family history (on my birthmother's side) on ancestry.com. Don't
know too much on my birthdad's side (only have a first name and some vital
statistics) as my birthmom refuses to provide me with that information.
This sounds like a lot of research into your past history, who you are.
This must be very important to you. Nor is it in any way an aspersion on
the parents who raised you.
3. Does it matter to you the manner in which you were born?
What do you mean? Headfirst? Or do you mean does it bother me that I was
conceived out of wedlock and subsequently given up for adoption?
No, not really. I mean, it's not like I had anything to do with it and can
do anything about it now.
But what if you couldn't look up your birth mother or father? What if
they were totally anonymous, as if it didn't matter to you? Would that
not ***** you off - somewhat?
I don't have all the answers, but I do believe that the focus of these
discussions should be the children, not the "desires" of the adults.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 03:10:14 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wDqUe.20438$4i6.1640@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EUjUe.17131$4i6.9196@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
1. Have you had a desire to know who your bio parents are?
Yes. A little bit growing up, but moreso after I had a child of my own.
Thanks. It's only human.
Well, everyone's different. I know a lot of adoptee that have NO desire to
search whatsoever. It's not an experience you can generalize.
2. Is it possible for you to find out? Or were you conceived from an
anonymous donor in some way?
<chuckle> I was born 44 years ago; don't believe there was too much of
that
"anonymous donor" thing going on back them. I have found my birthmother,
bio-grand parents, half-siblings, other relatives, as well as 200 years
worth of family history (on my birthmother's side) on ancestry.com.
Don't
know too much on my birthdad's side (only have a first name and some
vital
statistics) as my birthmom refuses to provide me with that information.
This sounds like a lot of research into your past history, who you are.
This must be very important to you. Nor is it in any way an aspersion on
the parents who raised you.
Of course not. And, frankly, it was something that just snowballed and not
something I was intially looking for or felt "I had to have". Did a little
digging and it just sort of happened.
3. Does it matter to you the manner in which you were born?
What do you mean? Headfirst? Or do you mean does it bother me that I was
conceived out of wedlock and subsequently given up for adoption?
No, not really. I mean, it's not like I had anything to do with it and
can
do anything about it now.
But what if you couldn't look up your birth mother or father?
Then, I couldn't. It happens all the time. I know lots of adoptees that
are unable to find out anything.
What if
they were totally anonymous, as if it didn't matter to you? Would that not
***** you off - somewhat?
Well, sure, but I'd get over it. Shoot, I've gotten over the fact that I'll
probably never know who my birthfather is. I have more important things in
my life ( husband, daughter, family, friends, etc.). What's the use on
dwelling on this?
I don't have all the answers, but I do believe that the focus of these
discussions should be the children, not the "desires" of the adults.
Well, hon, you don't own Usenet and discussions meander. You seem to be
under the impression that a biological family is the "best" one. From
observations of people I know and things I read, IMHO, it is certainly not
always the best situation. What is the most important factor is love -
whether the parents and their children are related by blood or not. Don't
focus on blood ties - focus on the emotional ones. Shoot, parents kill
their bio kids everyday.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
| | | | | | | | | |
