| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| 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: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
08 Sep 2005 02:50:49 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 01:05:50 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 11:51:23 AM |
|
|
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 01:19:30 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: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
09 Sep 2005 01:42:14 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com>
Michael Altarriba wrote:
For Michael, James, and Gregory -
I guess you guys are right. I just wasn't being liberal enough in my
thinking. I was looking at marriage as a social institution for the
benefit of the children and completely forgetting about the needs of the
adults. We have been so tied to this artificial concept of "family" that
we have failed to see other possibilities in a more free-thinking society.
Of course it doesn't matter if you know who you are, or who your parents
are, as long as you've got a nice house and some things. Why even have
marriage at all? That would eliminate the whole problem. We could just
"have babies" and even pass them around if someone is less fortunate and
hasn't got one. All we would have to do is make sure that someone was
watching them at all times. Doesn't have to be two parents though, of
either sex! Why should two individuals be allowed to hog the children
for so long? Why couldn't we have polygamy, or even NO-gamy! Without
being tied to a concept of marriage, we could live in communes of any
number of people, and share many babies. The stories around the campfire
would rock! Babysitters? Forgetaboutit.
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 04:40:05 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dfsl26$d0d$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com>
Michael Altarriba wrote:
For Michael, James, and Gregory -
I guess you guys are right. I just wasn't being liberal
enough in my thinking. I was looking at marriage as a
social institution for the benefit of the children and
completely forgetting about the needs of the adults. We
have been so tied to this artificial concept of "family"
that we have failed to see other possibilities in a more
free-thinking society.
Of course it doesn't matter if you know who you are, or
who your parents are, as long as you've got a nice house
and some things. Why even have marriage at all? That would
eliminate the whole problem. We could just "have babies"
and even pass them around if someone is less fortunate and
hasn't got one. All we would have to do is make sure that
someone was watching them at all times. Doesn't have to be
two parents though, of either sex! Why should two
individuals be allowed to hog the children for so long?
Why couldn't we have polygamy, or even NO-gamy! Without
being tied to a concept of marriage, we could live in
communes of any number of people, and share many babies.
The stories around the campfire would rock! Babysitters?
Forgetaboutit.
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others --
have been the practice in some culture or other, what you
suggest is quite reasonable.
And all of them would doubtlessly have protested that
their very strong gut feelings on family and marriage and
child-raising, feelings all working to support their
particular social organization, arose from "human nature"
because they were self-evidently "natural" and "right".
BTW, Cary, I've been meaning to respond to your New Scientist
article, just haven't had much time. I will try to get to it,
however.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has
become the norm only recently in our own culture for that
matter. People in the past did generally not have the
opportunity to sequester themselves away from the rest of
their respective families.
Very true. Camille Paglia calls the Western nuclear family
"incestuous".
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQyTFAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHynAf/UZ898ug96/+MrGYzOnJvpiE4V5RN32Sg
yaRGX2slQWuPtOmKBynyEKTmrEksnk1RcWt9WSO4UWgCFr4GLFS9Bh3RSwdTe+j0
fypSVx97JPGTw56MnmVjdoNrlh8u6w28gHE1qsZxG5iUw5wNnt6k3PakitRJcCNr
poKcy9w9zUf7uYTkl1E13qKioWspEigAM7A00TNVKyd449oFiiKitwUvc9ARpcGP
46BXRpGZ/+fov5oROwsviDY3x13Djwgx/KvhZA2XrIY1BQT6LuYSFrNOVPtzBgjz
VgYr1Ro8kSA6dVDzMRaj7VkrJ3mzhrWFgshGTz+94fScSvwbMFOMnQ==
=h6hL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
10 Sep 2005 03:40:22 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
One thing I've learned about freepers is, they always
spit out the red pill.
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:34:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:40:22 -0500, wrote
(in article <1126384822.925403.327420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
One thing I've learned about freepers is, they always
spit out the red pill.
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
YMCA . . . . .
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
11 Sep 2005 10:37:20 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:40:22 -0500, wrote
(in article <1126384822.925403.327420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Since all the variations you mention -- and many others -- have
been the practice in some culture or other, what you suggest is quite
reasonable.
The nuclear family, daddy and mommy and children, has become
the norm only recently in our own culture for that matter.
People in the past did generally not have the opportunity
to sequester themselves away from the rest of their respective
families.
One thing I've learned about freepers is, they always
spit out the red pill.
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
o/` In the navy... o/`
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 07:49:22 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:QJ6Ve.4862$Hs6.3066@trnddc07:
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:40:22 -0500,
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote (in article
<1126384822.925403.327420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
o/` In the navy... o/`
Probably Gilbert Herdt's Sambia, though I'd have to check. I
do know that they form all-male lineages.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQyTFAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHPmgf/TBLoVUnfy7rys4dUz/FYru3e5UBxMq60
HoUKzpL0GBNEcvGUBVb+jQ7R3GO9dEfBQVrMv+rJpcosc/PYnHoVa1qdtqPnBxIV
AhdcqZYZ7fHYd4mrjZyDnhX+ygMiiC/9wFJEvVjS1eS7sVgGLHE5N90K2JfaQzV3
SuPVNG8TaptIv0Za7mcMaQK1vYNZcoocudvR3DnSfias7CXN0Al8QDlasr9v0Qfj
8uinOXh/ELctzW5gNLNdA1TughsiV9eIRTcfhYi+9aZhBPjkSNMv6V775ziiJi5y
QWrjyhc1Za/WRDIvZp2DQ7L3kdoD5WrIs0lYpk+faAQw4op4tdJdhA==
=sZGr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 01:42:02 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
I was thinking "Macho macho man".
Marriage itself is a universal, but the exact
definition of marriage changes from culture to
culture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
12 Sep 2005 02:49:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:42:02 -0500, wrote
(in article <1126550522.797236.300950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Gray Shockley wrote:
I think marriage is a universal, although there's even
an all-male society in New Guinea based solely on
abd^H^H^H adoption.
That would be the "Village People of Western New Guinea"?
I was thinking "Macho macho man".
Marriage itself is a universal, but the exact
definition of marriage changes from culture to
culture.
And from couple to couple.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Hooked on alliteration
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 08:56:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
<article snipped>
Unless someone has something new to say, something that isn't a
long-winded restatement of that eternal "truth", "Gays are icky", I
think I'm done here.
Over a thousand posts, and not one legitimate, well-reasoned objection
to same-sex marriage. The one who came closest to doing so was Gary,
and I thank him for that.
Kelo could only manage the sort of taunts one hears in high school
hallways, and the less said of chirab's descent into madness, the
better.
What do the rest of you think? Was anything productive achieved here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 10:43:11 AM |
|
|
I think I'm done here.
Good luck with pushing your ill political agenda.
Unfortunately there were no evidences that prove the point that gay
marriage is a great for society. You clearly demonstrated disrespect
to human being, you demonstrated disrespect and ignorance to peoples
emotional and spiritual feeling Somehow you took responsibility of
world authority, that allows you to rule how people should think and
who is idiot and who is not.
It is clear, that people like you are leaving no options for others
other then defend their families and country from destruction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 12:53:44 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
<article snipped>
Unless someone has something new to say, something that isn't a
long-winded restatement of that eternal "truth", "Gays are icky", I
think I'm done here.
Over a thousand posts, and not one legitimate, well-reasoned objection
to same-sex marriage. The one who came closest to doing so was Gary,
and I thank him for that.
Kelo could only manage the sort of taunts one hears in high school
hallways, and the less said of chirab's descent into madness, the
better.
What do the rest of you think? Was anything productive achieved here?
Without getting all judgemental, accusatory, and emotional -
I learned number one what a lot of others think about this subject,
which I didn't know before. I will have to do some research now to
bolster my argument that it isn't good for the resulting children to be
born without their true mom & dad. Note that I did NOT say that some
sort of HARM would come to them, or any adoptee, just that I think all
human beings want to know their parentage and would not want to be
adopted if there is a choice in the matter. All of the anti gay marriage
people's arguments hinge on some aspect of this point, that such unions
are not nature's way for the procreation of human beings.
I wish things could be different. I do not hate homosexuals or wish them
unhappiness. I also realize that we will probably never stop heteros
from having illegitimate babies if they have trouble conceiving. I just
don't want to give official sanction to a system that would necessitate
such practices if the couples involved wished to conceive their own
children, and not just adopt.
I have the least respect for those in this discussion who played the
race card, or the name calling PC game. It is very tempting to put
yourself on the righteous side of political correctness and try and
label someone a "biggot" or "prejudiced" or some sort of "phobe" hoping
that a lynch mob will form and trash the guy. But having an opinion and
expressing it is all of our right. Let's stick to the discussion at
hand, and stop the *****. I don't yield to it, and neither did any of
the others.
Also not wanting to get into it again,
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 01:33:46 PM |
|
|
I wish things could be different. I do not hate homosexuals or wish them
unhappiness.
That is exactly what I am thinking; I totally support gays, and their
desires to be recognized by society. However, politicians use gays to
push their destructive political agenda and they are leaving no option
other then to fight fiercely against gay-marriage. For example I do
not understand why concept of separated but equal cannot be used for
gays. It is perfectly fine when women are separated from men but we
all enjoy equal rights. Equality does not constitute elimination of
any separation. Why should we have shared bathrooms, why men do not go
to Women's Clinics, why we have men's and women's clothes? Same
thing about gays, marriage is for man and a woman, and some kind of
officially recognized unions have to be created for gay couples.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
25 Sep 2005 04:44:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I wish things could be different. I do not hate homosexuals or wish them
unhappiness.
That is exactly what I am thinking; I totally support gays, and their
desires to be recognized by society. However, politicians use gays to
push their destructive political agenda and they are leaving no option
other then to fight fiercely against gay-marriage. For example I do
not understand why concept of separated but equal cannot be used for
gays. It is perfectly fine when women are separated from men but we
all enjoy equal rights. Equality does not constitute elimination of
any separation. Why should we have shared bathrooms, why men do not go
to Women's Clinics, why we have men's and women's clothes? Same
thing about gays, marriage is for man and a woman, and some kind of
officially recognized unions have to be created for gay couples.
As long as it doesn't end up entitling them to have illegitimate babies!
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
26 Sep 2005 09:28:31 AM |
|
|
As long as it doesn't end up entitling them to have illegitimate babies!
I think everyone already has a right to adopt a child, so this is
already done deal. There is nothing we can do at this point, general
public have been caught off guard with gay- marriage issue, including
myself. I had some kind of trust in the American system, now I see
that it can be easily destroyed, by educated freaks, with part-time
working brain. Ordinary people are demonstrating some resistance with
their feet by not electing democrats three times in a row, even though
democrats had all trumps on their hand to win. It is very sad because
I am adhere more to democratic party then to republican, but because of
those sick democrats that support insanity and destruction of society,
I have no choice and my vote is predetermined.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
