> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> Tough. > > > >>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and > > > >>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, > > > >>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a > > > >>> problem. > > > >>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's marriage > > > >>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect > > > >>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and > > > >>> would like to marginalize them. > > > >> I don't trust gays who say things like this:
> > > >> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount > > > >> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap > > > >> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping > > > >> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a > > > >> personal thing."
> > > >> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and makes > > > >> claims/demands on government, employers, etc.
> > > > Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of the > > > > increased claims on government, employers, etc.?
> > > Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of repealing the > > > law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in > > > increased claims in those domains.
> > You didn't answer my first question.
> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and > a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all > inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a > relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to > each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which > condemns gay marriage as well.
But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't have rights. People do. And in our society, heterosexual people have more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can marry.
"Cultural heritage" has been used for many years to prevent people from acquiring equal rights...this is just another one of those instances.
Dan Bretta wrote: > On Nov 4, 2:35 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Tough. >>>>>>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and >>>>>>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, >>>>>>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a >>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's marriage >>>>>>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect >>>>>>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and >>>>>>> would like to marginalize them. >>>>>> I don't trust gays who say things like this: >>>>>> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount >>>>>> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap >>>>>> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping >>>>>> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a >>>>>> personal thing." >>>>>> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and makes >>>>>> claims/demands on government, employers, etc. >>>>> Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of the >>>>> increased claims on government, employers, etc.? >>>> Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of repealing the >>>> law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in >>>> increased claims in those domains. >>> You didn't answer my first question. >> So what? I answered the second, far more important part.
> What's keeping you from answering the first question?
Nothing - i already did.
-- The Achilles heel of Socialism was the inability to link the socialist goal with the provision of incentives for efficient labor and the encouragement of effort on the part of individuals.
J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Tough. >>>>>>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and >>>>>>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, >>>>>>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a >>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's marriage >>>>>>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect >>>>>>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and >>>>>>> would like to marginalize them. >>>>>> I don't trust gays who say things like this: >>>>>> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount >>>>>> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap >>>>>> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping >>>>>> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a >>>>>> personal thing." >>>>>> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and makes >>>>>> claims/demands on government, employers, etc. >>>>> Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of the >>>>> increased claims on government, employers, etc.? >>>> Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of repealing the >>>> law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in >>>> increased claims in those domains. >>> You didn't answer my first question. >> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and >> a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all >> inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a >> relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to >> each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which >> condemns gay marriage as well. > But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't > have rights. People do.
i should probably ask about the rights of the person who wants to marry a cow, but .. nevermind.
> And in our society, heterosexual people have > more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can > marry.
If i want to marry my sister, all of the kapowski triplets, or you for that matter, well i'm denied all those 'rights' as well. And i'm heterosexual.
> "Cultural heritage" has been used for many years to prevent people > from acquiring equal rights...this is just another one of those > instances.
I also forgot to add that a key basis for my opposition is that i find the whole concept of 'gay marriage', like incest marriage, viscerally repugnant. It just resonates as something deeply unnatural and wrong.
-- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
Tonawanda Kardex wrote: > On Nov 4, 4:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. Younger >> generations are generally always more socially tolerant than previous >> generations. As more young voters vote, they'll get their day.
> The U.S. Constitution agrees with people like you and me.
Not now it doesn't. Maybe when all those gay-marriage-loving under-30s get older, they will enact a 28th amendment enshrining gay marriage rights? If so, then you'll be right.
-- there is no doubt that the black-white power struggle in south africa is but a microcosm of the global confrontation between the third world and the rich white nations of the world.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:36:04 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: > >On Nov 4, 12:35=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:17:01 -0800 (PST), Tonawanda Kardex
> >> <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 4, 4:28=3DA0am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. =3DA0Younger > >> >> generations are generally always more socially tolerant than previous > >> >> generations. =3DA0As more young voters vote, they'll get their day.
> >> >The U.S. Constitution agrees with people like you and me.
> >> >Which is why I am happy to know which of my neighbors are bigots now, > >> >so I can remind them of their pathetic insecurity later.
> >> Their neighbor is a bigot, too - everyone is a bigot about something.
> >> Hugh
> > Which makes bigotry perfectly acceptable?
> Certainly! A man who doesn't have strong opinions about anything ain't > very smart - or much of a man..
> Steve Cutchen <max...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:041120091310464090% > max...@earthlink.net:
> > In article > > <209989e3-2038-490c-8587-73373d5ed...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > > Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Tough.
> >> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and > >> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, > >> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a > >> problem.
> > The ONLY reason gays want their marriages sanctioned by the government > > is so they can take a big shit on straight society. They have > > everything else they want under the civil union law.
> > The whole marriage controversy is stupid. Imagine if we had civil > > rights associated with baptism or the like. Sorry. You don't get this > > tax break because you are not baptized.
> > I believe marriage should be taken out of the civil arena. I believe > > it to be a religious issue. Churches should be able to marry who they > > want to. If a church wants to allow gay marriage, fine. The > > government should stay out of it
> > As for civil rights, the government should bestow civil unions on > > whomever they deem they should. Married couples and non-married > > couples. If a couple wants to have a big shindig to celebrate their > > civil union, that's fine, too. Civil union should be a legal and > > financial association that bestows certain rights. And requires > > certain responsibilities.
> Yeah, there are a few of us on here that have been saying that for a long > time.
> Want to avoid calling a gay marriage by the term "marriage" and yet > provide equal protection under the law? Get the government out of the > "marriage" business.
> -- > Aaron-
Amen....and get religion out of the civil union business.
> > As for civil rights, the government should bestow civil unions on > > whomever they deem they should. Married couples and non-married > > couples. If a couple wants to have a big shindig to celebrate their > > civil union, that's fine, too. Civil union should be a legal and > > financial association that bestows certain rights. And requires > > certain responsibilities.
> Yeah, there are a few of us on here that have been saying that for a long > time.
> Want to avoid calling a gay marriage by the term "marriage" and yet > provide equal protection under the law? Get the government out of the > "marriage" business.
> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > >> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> Tough. > > > > >>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and > > > > >>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, > > > > >>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a > > > > >>> problem. > > > > >>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's > > > > >>> marriage > > > > >>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect > > > > >>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and > > > > >>> would like to marginalize them. > > > > >> I don't trust gays who say things like this:
> > > > >> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount > > > > >> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap > > > > >> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been > > > > >> hoping > > > > >> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a > > > > >> personal thing."
> > > > >> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and > > > > >> makes > > > > >> claims/demands on government, employers, etc.
> > > > > Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of the > > > > > increased claims on government, employers, etc.?
> > > > Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of repealing the > > > > law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in > > > > increased claims in those domains.
> > > You didn't answer my first question.
> > I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and > > a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all > > inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a > > relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to > > each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which > > condemns gay marriage as well.
> But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't > have rights. People do. And in our society, heterosexual people have > more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can > marry.
Nope. Heterosexual people have more rights than homosexual people because governments have decided to bestow rights on people based on if they are married. That's stupid. They might as well bestow rights based on if they have had a bar / bat mitzvah.
Marriage is a ceremonial right. In the Catholic church and many others, it is a sacrament in the same way that baptism is.
Governments are not in the baptism business. They need to get out of the marriage business. They need to bestow rights based on non-religious characteristics.
>I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and >nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, >medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a >problem.
That's just it - presumably, without "the label", they're not getting all of these things everywhere.
Here's my idea: 1. Each state may "recognize marriage" as it sees fit. 2. However, each state must give all couples consisting of consenting adults the right to "civil union", and all rights and privileges afforded to married persons must also be afforded to persons in civil unions as well. 3. Furthermore, each state will recognize as a civil union any marriage performed by a church where the married couple would not otherwise be recognized as married by the state, and each city may authorize civil marriages between such people as well, which the state will also treat as a civil union
In other words, "You can get married (in churches, by judges, or at city halls), and you are then entitled to all of the benefits of being part of a 'recognized' marriage (including privileges provided by private institutions - for example, a person cannot be denied the right to visit a 'civil union partner' in a hospital if that right would be granted to a 'recognized marriage spouse'), but the state can 'claim' that it doesn't 'recognize' the marriage, for all those words mean in reality. You just go on living your lives as a married couple."
The problem is, there will always be people who claim that if they can't be "just as married as other couples", then the whole thing is just a bunch of "code words" to keep them as second-class citizens. (It's treated as if it's equivalent to the following: "Black persons have the same rights and privileges as all other persons - but the state has the right to refer to you as the plural of a certain 6-letter N-word. Hey, it's just a 'label', isn't it?")
-- Don ___________________________________________________________
Because everybody needs insurance, but not everybody needs a lawyer - THAT'S why
> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> >> wrote:
>> > On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> > > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> > > > On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >> > > >> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> >> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>> Tough. >> > > >>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting >> > > >>> toot > and >> > > >>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax >> > > >>> breaks > , >> > > >>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't >> > > >>> be a problem. >> > > >>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's >> > > >>> mar > riage >> > > >>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to >> > > >>> protect traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't >> > > >>> like gays a > nd >> > > >>> would like to marginalize them. >> > > >> I don't trust gays who say things like this:
>> > > >> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of >> > > >> Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on >> > > >> her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters >> > > >> had been ho > ping >> > > >> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's >> > > >> a personal thing."
>> > > >> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, >> > > >> and m > akes >> > > >> claims/demands on government, employers, etc.
>> > > > Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of >> > > > the increased claims on government, employers, etc.?
>> > > Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of >> > > repealing > the >> > > law against interracial marriage, even though that would result >> > > in increased claims in those domains.
>> > You didn't answer my first question.
>> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and >> a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all >> inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a >> relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to >> each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which >> condemns gay marriage as well.
> But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't > have rights. People do. And in our society, heterosexual people have > more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can > marry.
A gay dude has just as much right to marry a girl as a straight dude does. There is equality of the law here.
MH
-- Ten of Spades Aggee Fedayeen Chief Supreme Ruler of the Obvious RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005 Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006
"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got outcoached." - OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002
On Nov 4, 4:38 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> I also forgot to add that a key basis for my opposition is that i find > the whole concept of 'gay marriage', like incest marriage, viscerally > repugnant.
definately.....and that doesn't even address the point that most gay guys don't view marriage and fidelity and concepts like that in anywhere near the same way you or I do. most of the homosexual men championing this "gay marriage" stuff have a steady bf and still sleep with 20 or 30 different people every few months.......
now lesbians are different, but thats a whole different story......
fortunately, obama has been 100% right in taking a fairly strong anti gay marriage approach...his justice dept has defended the doma, and he was recently booed by some ******** at a well publicized gay community meeting somewhere recently......
> > On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > > > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > >> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> Tough. > > > > > >>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and > > > > > >>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, > > > > > >>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a > > > > > >>> problem. > > > > > >>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's > > > > > >>> marriage > > > > > >>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect > > > > > >>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and > > > > > >>> would like to marginalize them. > > > > > >> I don't trust gays who say things like this:
> > > > > >> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount > > > > > >> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap > > > > > >> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been > > > > > >> hoping > > > > > >> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a > > > > > >> personal thing."
> > > > > >> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and > > > > > >> makes > > > > > >> claims/demands on government, employers, etc.
> > > > > > Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of the > > > > > > increased claims on government, employers, etc.?
> > > > > Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of repealing the > > > > > law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in > > > > > increased claims in those domains.
> > > > You didn't answer my first question.
> > > I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and > > > a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all > > > inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a > > > relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to > > > each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which > > > condemns gay marriage as well.
> > But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't > > have rights. People do. And in our society, heterosexual people have > > more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can > > marry.
> Nope. Heterosexual people have more rights than homosexual people > because governments have decided to bestow rights on people based on if > they are married. That's stupid. They might as well bestow rights > based on if they have had a bar / bat mitzvah.
> Marriage is a ceremonial right. In the Catholic church and many > others, it is a sacrament in the same way that baptism is.
> Governments are not in the baptism business. They need to get out of > the marriage business. They need to bestow rights based on > non-religious characteristics.
I have absolutely no issues with anything you say.
> > On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> > >> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >> > > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > >> > > > On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >> > > >> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >>> Tough. > >> > > >>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting > >> > > >>> toot > > and > >> > > >>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax > >> > > >>> breaks > > , > >> > > >>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't > >> > > >>> be a problem. > >> > > >>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's > >> > > >>> mar > > riage > >> > > >>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to > >> > > >>> protect traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't > >> > > >>> like gays a > > nd > >> > > >>> would like to marginalize them. > >> > > >> I don't trust gays who say things like this:
> >> > > >> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of > >> > > >> Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on > >> > > >> her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters > >> > > >> had been ho > > ping > >> > > >> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's > >> > > >> a personal thing."
> >> > > >> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, > >> > > >> and m > > akes > >> > > >> claims/demands on government, employers, etc.
> >> > > > Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of > >> > > > the increased claims on government, employers, etc.?
> >> > > Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of > >> > > repealing > > the > >> > > law against interracial marriage, even though that would result > >> > > in increased claims in those domains.
> >> > You didn't answer my first question.
> >> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and > >> a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all > >> inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a > >> relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to > >> each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which > >> condemns gay marriage as well.
> > But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't > > have rights. People do. And in our society, heterosexual people have > > more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can > > marry.
> A gay dude has just as much right to marry a girl as a straight dude > does. There is equality of the law here.
I think we should continue to descriminate against women because a chick can always get a sex change.
> fortunately, obama has been 100% right in taking a fairly strong anti > gay marriage approach...his justice dept has defended the doma, and he > was recently booed by some ******** at a well publicized gay community > meeting somewhere recently......
Yes, while he's tried his best to throw rhetorical bones to the 'gay community', his actions have largely been laudable.
-- there is no doubt that the black-white power struggle in south africa is but a microcosm of the global confrontation between the third world and the rich white nations of the world.
mianderson wrote: > On Nov 4, 4:38 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> I also forgot to add that a key basis for my opposition is that i find >> the whole concept of 'gay marriage', like incest marriage, viscerally >> repugnant.
> definately.....and that doesn't even address the point that most gay > guys don't view marriage and fidelity and concepts like that in > anywhere near the same way you or I do. most of the homosexual men > championing this "gay marriage" stuff have a steady bf and still sleep > with 20 or 30 different people every few months.......
How is this different from your view of marriage and fidelity?
>>> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tough. >>>>>>>>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting >>>>>>>>> toot >>> and >>>>>>>>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax >>>>>>>>> breaks >>> , >>>>>>>>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't >>>>>>>>> be a problem. >>>>>>>>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's >>>>>>>>> mar >>> riage >>>>>>>>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to >>>>>>>>> protect traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't >>>>>>>>> like gays a >>> nd >>>>>>>>> would like to marginalize them. >>>>>>>> I don't trust gays who say things like this: >>>>>>>> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of >>>>>>>> Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on >>>>>>>> her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters >>>>>>>> had been ho >>> ping >>>>>>>> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's >>>>>>>> a personal thing." >>>>>>>> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, >>>>>>>> and m >>> akes >>>>>>>> claims/demands on government, employers, etc. >>>>>>> Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of >>>>>>> the increased claims on government, employers, etc.? >>>>>> Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of >>>>>> repealing >>> the >>>>>> law against interracial marriage, even though that would result >>>>>> in increased claims in those domains. >>>>> You didn't answer my first question. >>>> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and >>>> a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all >>>> inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a >>>> relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to >>>> each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which >>>> condemns gay marriage as well. >>> But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't >>> have rights. People do. And in our society, heterosexual people have >>> more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can >>> marry. >> A gay dude has just as much right to marry a girl as a straight dude >> does. There is equality of the law here.
> I think we should continue to descriminate against women because a > chick can always get a sex change.
> Jon
One interesting aspect of all this is that many people want to define marriage as between a "man" and a "woman", but in many states there is no legal definition (or no consistent definition) of "man" and "woman". For example, I know a couple of women in Maine who will remain legally married even after this repeal, because one of them was a man when they got married, even though the state also legally recognizes that person as a woman now.
<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 2:36=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:36:04 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
>> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 4, 12:35=3DA0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:17:01 -0800 (PST), Tonawanda Kardex
>> >> <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 4, 4:28=3D3DA0am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote= >:
>> >> >> Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. =3D3DA0Younger >> >> >> generations are generally always more socially tolerant than previo= >us >> >> >> generations. =3D3DA0As more young voters vote, they'll get their da= >y.
>> >> >The U.S. Constitution agrees with people like you and me.
>> >> >Which is why I am happy to know which of my neighbors are bigots now, >> >> >so I can remind them of their pathetic insecurity later.
>> >> Their neighbor is a bigot, too - everyone is a bigot about something.
>> >> Hugh
>> > =A0 =A0 Which makes bigotry perfectly acceptable?
>> Certainly! A man who doesn't have strong opinions about anything ain't >> very smart - or much of a man..
>> Hugh-
> You need to look up the definition of bigotry.
You need to get help comprehending the difinition.
>a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; >especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) >with hatred and intolerance
The first line is the definition; it is followed by some limited, not all-inclusive, examples. I have posted the definition a half dozen times at least. I had not expected a UT fan to have such minimal comprehension.
I am intolerant of people who don't bathe, loud music played through open car windows, irresponsible people, more socialism, liars - any one of those entitles me to be a bigot.
<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 3:07=A0pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> Steve Cutchen <max...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:041120091310464090% >> max...@earthlink.net:
>> > In article >> > <209989e3-2038-490c-8587-73373d5ed...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, >> > Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Tough.
>> >> I'm agnostic on the issue. =A0I don't get why their fighting toot and >> >> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, >> >> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a >> >> problem.
>> > The ONLY reason gays want their marriages sanctioned by the government >> > is so they can take a big shit on straight society. They have >> > everything else they want under the civil union law.
>> > The whole marriage controversy is stupid. =A0Imagine if we had civil >> > rights associated with baptism or the like. =A0Sorry. =A0You don't get = >this >> > tax break because you are not baptized.
>> > I believe marriage should be taken out of the civil arena. =A0I believe >> > it to be a religious issue. =A0Churches should be able to marry who the= >y >> > want to. =A0If a church wants to allow gay marriage, fine. =A0The >> > government should stay out of it
>> > As for civil rights, the government should bestow civil unions on >> > whomever they deem they should. =A0Married couples and non-married >> > couples. =A0If a couple wants to have a big shindig to celebrate their >> > civil union, that's fine, too. =A0Civil union should be a legal and >> > financial association that bestows certain rights. =A0And requires >> > certain responsibilities.
>> Yeah, there are a few of us on here that have been saying that for a long >> time.
>> Want to avoid calling a gay marriage by the term "marriage" and yet >> provide equal protection under the law? Get the government out of the >> "marriage" =A0business.
>> -- >> Aaron-
> Amen....and get religion out of the civil union business.
Interesting. When the government was not involved they had a helluva problem. Just not getting whacked by someone was a biggie.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:14:26 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: > >On Nov 4, 2:36=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:36:04 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
> >> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 4, 12:35=3DA0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:17:01 -0800 (PST), Tonawanda Kardex
> >> >> <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 4, 4:28=3D3DA0am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote= > >:
> >> >> >> Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. =3D3DA0Younger > >> >> >> generations are generally always more socially tolerant than previo= > >us > >> >> >> generations. =3D3DA0As more young voters vote, they'll get their da= > >y.
> >> >> >The U.S. Constitution agrees with people like you and me.
> >> >> >Which is why I am happy to know which of my neighbors are bigots now, > >> >> >so I can remind them of their pathetic insecurity later.
> >> >> Their neighbor is a bigot, too - everyone is a bigot about something.
> >> >> Hugh
> >> > =A0 =A0 Which makes bigotry perfectly acceptable?
> >> Certainly! A man who doesn't have strong opinions about anything ain't > >> very smart - or much of a man..
> >> Hugh-
> > You need to look up the definition of bigotry.
> You need to get help comprehending the difinition.
> >a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; > >especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) > >with hatred and intolerance
> The first line is the definition;
Maybe you should look up prejudice.
it is followed by some limited, not
> all-inclusive, examples. I have posted the definition a half dozen > times at least. I had not expected a UT fan to have such minimal > comprehension.
The examples amplify the meaning of the definition. They're there for a reason. The fact that you want to ignore them is telling.
> I am intolerant of people who don't bathe, loud music played through > open car windows, irresponsible people, more socialism, liars - any > one of those entitles me to be a bigot.
stephenJ wrote: > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Tough. >>>>>>>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and >>>>>>>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, >>>>>>>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a >>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's >>>>>>>> marriage >>>>>>>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect >>>>>>>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and >>>>>>>> would like to marginalize them. >>>>>>> I don't trust gays who say things like this: >>>>>>> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount >>>>>>> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap >>>>>>> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been >>>>>>> hoping >>>>>>> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a >>>>>>> personal thing." >>>>>>> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and >>>>>>> makes >>>>>>> claims/demands on government, employers, etc. >>>>>> Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of the >>>>>> increased claims on government, employers, etc.? >>>>> Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of >>>>> repealing the >>>>> law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in >>>>> increased claims in those domains. >>>> You didn't answer my first question.
>>> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and >>> a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all >>> inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a >>> relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to >>> each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which >>> condemns gay marriage as well.
>> But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't >> have rights. People do.
> i should probably ask about the rights of the person who wants to marry > a cow, but .. nevermind.
>> And in our society, heterosexual people have >> more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can >> marry.
> If i want to marry my sister, all of the kapowski triplets, or you for > that matter, well i'm denied all those 'rights' as well. And i'm > heterosexual.
>> "Cultural heritage" has been used for many years to prevent people >> from acquiring equal rights...this is just another one of those >> instances.
> I also forgot to add that a key basis for my opposition is that i find > the whole concept of 'gay marriage', like incest marriage, viscerally > repugnant. It just resonates as something deeply unnatural and wrong.
Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex acts that you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.)
Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such acts to enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.)
> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex acts that > you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.)
Nope.
> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such acts to > enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.)
Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets what in the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their business.
Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples get, etc.).
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting toot and > nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks, > medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a > problem.
> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's marriage > organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect > traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and > would like to marginalize them. How long did Gay/Civil Rights take to > become part of the GOP platform? Are they even now?
> Now I'll admit that for me the toughest issue for it is probably on > the issue of adoption.
> Anyway, all this is a moot point. Another meme that I see parrotted > often is that this is a "Center right nation" or that the majority of > the country refers to them as conservatives. This misses the fact > that 1, if you ask the same question and replace liberal with > progressive, there's parity and 2, casual conservatives themselves are > to the left of where they were 15 - 20 years ago.
> Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. Younger > generations are generally always more socially tolerant than previous > generations. As more young voters vote, they'll get their day.
> I don't think the *label* is that big a deal though.
In that case, Marriage simply looses its intended meaning and simply becomes another way to say domestic partnership rather than describe a specific subset of domestic partnership.
We might has well end the "man/men" and "woman/women" definitions too, and simply refer to everyone as a "human/humans". No sense in having words that identify specific subsets.
Maybe the Germans should come up with a new word for "the" since their present only covers male, female, and neutral (der, die, oder das). Surely they need a version of "the" to cover transgendered nouns.
>>>> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Tough. >>>>>>>>>> I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't get why their fighting >>>>>>>>>> toot >>>> and >>>>>>>>>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax >>>>>>>>>> breaks >>>> , >>>>>>>>>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't >>>>>>>>>> be a problem. >>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's >>>>>>>>>> mar >>>> riage >>>>>>>>>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to >>>>>>>>>> protect traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't >>>>>>>>>> like gays a >>>> nd >>>>>>>>>> would like to marginalize them. >>>>>>>>> I don't trust gays who say things like this: >>>>>>>>> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of >>>>>>>>> Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on >>>>>>>>> her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters >>>>>>>>> had been ho >>>> ping >>>>>>>>> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's >>>>>>>>> a personal thing." >>>>>>>>> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, >>>>>>>>> and m >>>> akes >>>>>>>>> claims/demands on government, employers, etc. >>>>>>>> Why are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to it because of >>>>>>>> the increased claims on government, employers, etc.? >>>>>>> Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of >>>>>>> repealing >>>> the >>>>>>> law against interracial marriage, even though that would result >>>>>>> in increased claims in those domains. >>>>>> You didn't answer my first question. >>>>> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and >>>>> a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all >>>>> inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a >>>>> relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to >>>>> each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which >>>>> condemns gay marriage as well. >>>> But this is the problem...cows and sofas aren't people. They don't >>>> have rights. People do. And in our society, heterosexual people have >>>> more rights than homosexual people do due to the fact that they can >>>> marry. >>> A gay dude has just as much right to marry a girl as a straight dude >>> does. There is equality of the law here.
>> I think we should continue to descriminate against women because a >> chick can always get a sex change.
>> Jon
> One interesting aspect of all this is that many people want to define > marriage as between a "man" and a "woman", but in many states there is > no legal definition (or no consistent definition) of "man" and "woman".
Yes, there are legit grounds for debate within our american cultural context. Age of marriage is one (e.g., it might be acceptable for 14 year olds to marrry in alabama, but not new york) and closeness of relatedness for purposes of drawing the incest line is another.
As for "sex-change operations" and the like, well that's just too screwy for me. Cutting off a man's dick and digging a hole in its place doesn't make him a "woman", IMO.
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
On Nov 4, 9:17 am, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. Younger > > generations are generally always more socially tolerant than previous > > generations. As more young voters vote, they'll get their day.
> The U.S. Constitution agrees with people like you and me.
> Which is why I am happy to know which of my neighbors are bigots now, > so I can remind them of their pathetic insecurity later.
So that means that banning incestuous marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.
> > >> >> <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >On Nov 4, 4:28=3D3DA0am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote= > > >:
> > >> >> >> Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. =3D3DA0Younger > > >> >> >> generations are generally always more socially tolerant than previo= > > >us > > >> >> >> generations. =3D3DA0As more young voters vote, they'll get their da= > > >y.
> > >> >> >The U.S. Constitution agrees with people like you and me.
> > >> >> >Which is why I am happy to know which of my neighbors are bigots now, > > >> >> >so I can remind them of their pathetic insecurity later.
> > >> >> Their neighbor is a bigot, too - everyone is a bigot about something.
> > >> >> Hugh
> > >> > =A0 =A0 Which makes bigotry perfectly acceptable?
> > >> Certainly! A man who doesn't have strong opinions about anything ain't > > >> very smart - or much of a man..
> > >> Hugh-
> > > You need to look up the definition of bigotry.
> > You need to get help comprehending the difinition.
> > >a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; > > >especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) > > >with hatred and intolerance
> > The first line is the definition;
> Maybe you should look up prejudice.
> it is followed by some limited, not
> > all-inclusive, examples. I have posted the definition a half dozen > > times at least. I had not expected a UT fan to have such minimal > > comprehension.
> The examples amplify the meaning of the definition. They're > there for a reason. The fact that you want to ignore them is telling.
> > I am intolerant of people who don't bathe, loud music played through > > open car windows, irresponsible people, more socialism, liars - any > > one of those entitles me to be a bigot.
|
