> On Nov 4, 3:07 pm, 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. 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.
Yup,
Go to a government clerking factory and register as legal partners. If you want to be married, go get married by some organization outside of government that provides the service as they define it.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:41:30 -0600, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > mianderson wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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.).
>>>>> 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.
There is a wide variety of situations out there, few of them as simple as that. In any event, I believe there are currently states with legal definitions that disagree with your opinion.
>> >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 raci= >al or ethnic group) >> >with hatred and intolerance
>> The first line is the definition;
> Maybe you should look up prejudice.
Why? I have no intolerance without basis.
>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.
Ignore them??? I pointed them out as limited, not exclusive, examples.
> Try this one. "Bigot" is not a compliment no matter how you want >to color it.
I'm not intolerant of different opinions - I think people have a right to them. In fact, differing opinions often separate the successful people from the unsuccessful ones. I guess you are not happy with that.
I would not make a responsible decision without knowing the differing opinions.
> > > >> >> <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.
> >> >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 raci= > >al or ethnic group) > >> >with hatred and intolerance
> >> The first line is the definition;
> > Maybe you should look up prejudice.
> Why? I have no intolerance without basis.
Then that's not bigotry.
> >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.
> Ignore them??? I pointed them out as limited, not exclusive, examples.
> > Try this one. "Bigot" is not a compliment no matter how you want > >to color it.
> I'm not intolerant of different opinions - I think people have a right > to them. In fact, differing opinions often separate the successful > people from the unsuccessful ones. I guess you are not happy with > that.
> I would not make a responsible decision without knowing the differing > opinions.
Then you're not practicing bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance combined with prejudice.
>> >> >a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinio= >ns =3D >> >and prejudices; >> >> >especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a r= >aci=3D >> >al or ethnic group) >> >> >with hatred and intolerance
>> >> The first line is the definition;
>> > =A0 =A0Maybe you should look up prejudice.
>> Why? I =A0have no intolerance without basis.
> Then that's not bigotry.
>> >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.
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0The examples amplify the meaning of the definition. They're >> >there for a reason. The fact that you want to ignore them is telling.
>> Ignore them??? I pointed them out as limited, not exclusive, examples.
>> > =A0 =A0Try this one. "Bigot" is not a compliment no matter how you want >> >to color it.
>> I'm not intolerant of different opinions - I think people have a right >> to them. In fact, differing opinions often separate the successful >> people from the unsuccessful ones. I guess you are not happy with >> that.
>> I would not make a responsible decision without knowing the differing >> opinions.
> Then you're not practicing bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance >combined with prejudice.
In such a case your comprehensive ability is severely limited. M-W sells dictionaries, you don't.
>> > > >> >> <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> >On Nov 4, 4:28=3D3D3DA0am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.c= >om> wrote=3D >> > > >:
>> > > >> >> >> Gay marriage is 5-10 y ears away, it's inevitable. =3D3D3DA0= >Younger >> > > >> >> >> generations are generally always more socially tolerant than= > previo=3D >> > > >us >> > > >> >> >> generations. =3D3D3DA0As more young voters vote, they'll get= > their da=3D >> > > >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 bigo= >ts now, >> > > >> >> >so I can remind them of their pathetic insecurity later.
>> > > >> >> Their neighbor is a bigot, too - everyone is a bigot about some= >thing.
>> > > >> >> Hugh
>> > > >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 Which makes bigotry perfectly acceptable?
>> > > >> Certainly! A man who doesn't have strong opinions about anything a= >in't >> > > >> very smart - or much of a man..
>> > > >> Hugh-
>> > > > =A0 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 opini= >ons 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;
>> > =A0 =A0 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.
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 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 =A0- an= >y >> > > one of those entitles me to be a bigot.
> >> >> >a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinio= > >ns =3D > >> >and prejudices; > >> >> >especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a r= > >aci=3D > >> >al or ethnic group) > >> >> >with hatred and intolerance
> >> >> The first line is the definition;
> >> > =A0 =A0Maybe you should look up prejudice.
> >> Why? I =A0have no intolerance without basis.
> > Then that's not bigotry.
> >> >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.
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0The examples amplify the meaning of the definition. They're > >> >there for a reason. The fact that you want to ignore them is telling.
> >> Ignore them??? I pointed them out as limited, not exclusive, examples.
> >> > =A0 =A0Try this one. "Bigot" is not a compliment no matter how you want > >> >to color it.
> >> I'm not intolerant of different opinions - I think people have a right > >> to them. In fact, differing opinions often separate the successful > >> people from the unsuccessful ones. I guess you are not happy with > >> that.
> >> I would not make a responsible decision without knowing the differing > >> opinions.
> > Then you're not practicing bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance > >combined with prejudice.
> In such a case your comprehensive ability is severely limited. M-W > sells dictionaries, you don't.
> Hugh-
"A person obstinately or intolerently devoted to his or her own opinions and PREJUDICES"....now, which one of us lacks "comprehensive ability"?
Randolph M. Jones wrote: > stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> 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.).
> Because of your personal visceral repugnance?
Yes.
-- I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis that had crash-landed from a burning star onto American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis had left the building.
Randolph M. Jones wrote: > stephenJ wrote: >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 7:46 pm, Matthew Hennig <ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com> wrote: >>>>> "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote >>>>> innews:92107c21-6c94-4cc5-8cf8-306d8a9f89d4@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> 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.
> There is a wide variety of situations out there, few of them as simple > as that. In any event, I believe there are currently states with legal > definitions that disagree with your opinion.
Quite possibly. There are legitimately (i.e., born this way, not sculpted via surgery) "trans-gendered" people out there with strange combinations of male/female genitalia, etc.
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
> 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.
> Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: big·ot > Pronunciation: \'bi-g?t\ > Function: noun > Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot > Date: 1660 >>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;
...and notice the first line says "opinions AND prejudices", not "opinions OR prejudices".
> On Nov 4, 2:15 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 3:07 pm, 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. I don't get why their fighting toot >> > >> an > d >> > >> 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 >> > > governmen > t >> > > 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 ge > t this >> > > tax break because you are not baptized.
>> > > I believe marriage should be taken out of the civil arena. I >> > > belie > ve >> > > it to be a religious issue. Churches should be able to marry who >> > > t > hey >> > > 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 >> > > thei > r >> > > 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 lo > ng >> > 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.
> Yup,
> Go to a government clerking factory and register as legal partners. > If you want to be married, go get married by some organization outside > of government that provides the service as they define it.
...and can we get rid of the special tax exemptions for religion at the same time? You want to be non-profit, then meet the same rules non- religious non-profits have to.
> 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.
Depending on how you define "incestuous", quite possibly yes.
> > On Nov 4, 2:15 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 3:07 pm, 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. I don't get why their fighting toot > >> > >> an > > d > >> > >> 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 > >> > > governmen > > t > >> > > 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 ge > > t this > >> > > tax break because you are not baptized.
> >> > > I believe marriage should be taken out of the civil arena. I > >> > > belie > > ve > >> > > it to be a religious issue. Churches should be able to marry who > >> > > t > > hey > >> > > 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 > >> > > thei > > r > >> > > 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 lo > > ng > >> > 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.
> > Yup,
> > Go to a government clerking factory and register as legal partners. > > If you want to be married, go get married by some organization outside > > of government that provides the service as they define it.
> ...and can we get rid of the special tax exemptions for religion at the > same time? You want to be non-profit, then meet the same rules non- > religious non-profits have to.
> -- > Aaron-
Works for me. All the religious exemption means is the govt gets to decide what is a religion and what isn't.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:33:42 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: > "A person obstinately or intolerently devoted to his or her own >opinions and PREJUDICES"....now, which one of us lacks "comprehensive >ability"?
The terms from your obscure source are incompatible . Bigotry may have a basis, prejudice may not based on the standard, Merriam-Webster.
You need to get lower seats at Shields-Watkins - the altitude of your cheap seats is affecting you.
>> 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.
>> Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: big·ot >> Pronunciation: \'bi-g?t\ >> Function: noun >> Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot >> Date: 1660 >>>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;
>...and notice the first line says "opinions AND prejudices", not >"opinions OR prejudices".
>-- >Aaron
I responded to deems too fast - I presumed he used his definition vice the real one. Mea culpa.
It's interesting that, by the M-W definitions, the terms are incompatible. One has a basis, the other does not.
So, I guess deems was right. He has proved I am not a bigot because I don't have unfounded prejudices. They all have basis.
> >> 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.
> >> Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: big·ot > >> Pronunciation: \'bi-g?t\ > >> Function: noun > >> Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot > >> Date: 1660 > >>>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;
> >...and notice the first line says "opinions AND prejudices", not > >"opinions OR prejudices".
> >-- > >Aaron
> I responded to deems too fast - I presumed he used his definition vice > the real one. Mea culpa.
> It's interesting that, by the M-W definitions, the terms are > incompatible. One has a basis, the other does not.
> So, I guess deems was right. He has proved I am not a bigot because I > don't have unfounded prejudices. They all have basis.
> Hugh-
There ya go.......even if you're intolerent, at least you're not a bigot!
> On Nov 5, 1:34 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote >> innews:246af334-4ea7-4740-9e44-a5 > 10d716e...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 4, 2:15 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 4, 3:07 pm, 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. I don't get why their fighting >> >> > >> toot an >> > d >> >> > >> 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 >> >> > > governmen >> > t >> >> > > 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 ge >> > t this >> >> > > tax break because you are not baptized.
>> >> > > I believe marriage should be taken out of the civil arena. I >> >> > > belie >> > ve >> >> > > it to be a religious issue. Churches should be able to marry >> >> > > wh > o >> >> > > t >> > hey >> >> > > 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 thei >> > r >> >> > > civil union, that's fine, too. Civil union should be a legal >> >> > > an > d >> >> > > 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 lo >> > ng >> >> > 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.
>> > Yup,
>> > Go to a government clerking factory and register as legal partners. >> > If you want to be married, go get married by some organization >> > outside of government that provides the service as they define it.
>> ...and can we get rid of the special tax exemptions for religion at >> the same time? You want to be non-profit, then meet the same rules >> non- religious non-profits have to.
> Works for me. All the religious exemption means is the govt gets > to decide what is a religion and what isn't.
Which IMO is a clear violation of the first amendment.
stephenJ wrote: > Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>>> 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.).
>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance?
> Yes.
While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful that you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I think you are going for a reaction here.
Randolph M. Jones wrote: > stephenJ wrote: >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> 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.).
>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >> Yes.
> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful that > you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I think > you are going for a reaction here.
It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
-- I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis that had crash-landed from a burning star onto American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis had left the building.
stephenJ wrote: > Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> 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.).
>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>> Yes.
>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful that >> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I think >> you are going for a reaction here.
> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:38:41 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >On Nov 5, 2:17=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> On 5 Nov 2009 18:32:48 GMT, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
>> So, I guess deems was right. He has proved I am not a bigot because I >> don't have unfounded prejudices. They all have basis.
>> Hugh-
> There ya go.......even if you're intolerent, at least you're not a >bigot!
Replying to your first message where my response was wrong, in my further defense I have had pink eye for 3 days now and I can still just barely read the screen.
I know, if I couldn't read the screen it was stupid for me to try to respond.
Between gout, allergies and pink eye I am convinced that aging is detrimental to one's health. I don't want to be 81 years old anymore.
stephenJ wrote: > Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> 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.).
>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>> Yes.
>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful that >> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I think >> you are going for a reaction here.
> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" (whatever that means). 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious beliefs. 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on which to base legislation. Not one of them is based on rationality, and together they really form an excellent encapsulation of an approach to governance that this country was formed to get rid of.
|
