> Jayne wrote: I write from the perspective of a person in a traditional marriage. I was married in a church, have remained married and faithful for 23 years, have seven children and do not use artificial birth control. I wonder how many people who say that they want the civil definition of marriage to keep its traditional meaning have really thought about what they are asking for. Do they want the law to say that people must be married in church? Do they want adultery, divorce and birth control to be illegal? Should the government enforce that married couples have children? I am reasonably sure that the vast majority of Canadians do not want this. Trying to give the civil definition of marriage its traditional meaning at this point is shutting the barn door after the horse has been stolen, lived out its natural life and been dead for a few decades.

I disagree, Jayne. What is this line of thinking? All or nothing?
Throw out the baby with the bath water?

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: It actually doesn't matter to what extent the stereotypical differences are innate or not, since many individuals don't conform to the stereotypes.

But MOST do, and that is the point. Society is set up for the majority, or it
used to be, not the vocal minority, who feel they are *entitled* to everything
under the sun NOWADAYS. You know, like the kind that get upset that the
Pledge of Allegiance was said in school, so now it's banned in some schools, as
it "hurt Johnny's feelings" or "violated "his civil rights" or some such (new
age) bull****. See, everything is so wishy washy nowadays, due to the
current PC mantra.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: It actually doesn't matter to what extent the stereotypical differences are innate or not, since many individuals don't conform to the stereotypes. But MOST do, and that is the point. Society is set up for the majority, or it used to be,

So does that mean people like me who don't conform to stereotypes
aren't supposed to get married or have children?
not the vocal minority, who feel they are *entitled* to everything under the sun NOWADAYS.

Can you relate this remark _in any way_ to the discussion of whether
gays should be allowed the privilege of getting married, just like
non-gays?

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: It actually doesn't matter to what extent the stereotypical differences are innate or not, since many individuals don't conform to the stereotypes. But MOST do, and that is the point. Society is set up for the majority, or it used to be, So does that mean people like me who don't conform to stereotypes aren't supposed to get married or have children?

I don't know what you're referring to. "people like me..." You mean with
the variations in personality?
not the vocal minority, who feel they are *entitled* to everything under the sun NOWADAYS. Can you relate this remark _in any way_ to the discussion of whether gays should be allowed the privilege of getting married, just like non-gays?

They want all the benefits and privileges (if there are any), and societal
recognition that go along with a family marriage, as originally set up for
families (commonly with children).

This is not just about gays, it's about almost everybody now, as I mentioned in
an earlier post. The whole structure of our society is coming into question
(as I see it), and being systematically dismanted, to satisfy "special
interest" groups. Look what's happened to AA. And the ACLU. Look
what's happened to that state offfice in the South, where they were forced to
remove that Ten Commandment's statue (or whatever - I've forgotten). And you
can't even say the Pledge of Allegiance in class anymore? Gimme a break...

On 21 Sep 2003 21:12:14 -0700,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: It actually doesn't matter to what extent the stereotypical differences are innate or not, since many individuals don't conform to the stereotypes. But MOST do, and that is the point. Society is set up for the majority, or it used to be, So does that mean people like me who don't conform to stereotypes aren't supposed to get married or have children?

If you're marrying a woman that's fine. :)
not the vocal minority, who feel they are *entitled* to everything under the sun NOWADAYS. Can you relate this remark _in any way_ to the discussion of whether gays should be allowed the privilege of getting married, just like non-gays?

Marriage is a man and a women. It's not a "privilege" for any two beings.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:>>> It actually doesn't matter to what extent the stereotypical> differences are innate or not, since many individuals don't conform to> the stereotypes. But MOST do, and that is the point. Society is set up for the majority, or it used to be, So does that mean people like me who don't conform to stereotypes aren't supposed to get married or have children? I don't know what you're referring to. "people like me..." You mean with the variations in personality?

Yep.
not the vocal minority, who feel they are *entitled* to everything under the sun NOWADAYS. Can you relate this remark _in any way_ to the discussion of whether gays should be allowed the privilege of getting married, just like non-gays? They want all the benefits and privileges (if there are any), and societal recognition that go along with a family marriage, as originally set up for families (commonly with children).

In other words, they want the _same_ privileges as anyone else. Not
"special" ones.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 21 Sep 2003 21:12:14 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: > "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: > > > It actually doesn't matter to what extent the stereotypical > differences are innate or not, since many individuals don't conform to > the stereotypes. But MOST do, and that is the point. Society is set up for the majority, or it used to be, So does that mean people like me who don't conform to stereotypes aren't supposed to get married or have children? If you're marrying a woman that's fine. :)

Not according to Bill, for it is only my stereotypical manliness and
her stereotypical womanliness that make us good complements as
parents. Otherwise we might as well be two gay men.
not the vocal minority, who feel they are *entitled* to everything under the sun NOWADAYS. Can you relate this remark _in any way_ to the discussion of whether gays should be allowed the privilege of getting married, just like non-gays? Marriage is a man and a women.

Says you.

in article f7nvmvc7h3s127ourf7pbs1k2pneu3u8o5@4ax.com, Larry Kessler at
l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t wrote on 9/22/03 11:52 PM:

-- snipped pearls before swine -- Wake up and smell the coffee. Denying gay people the right to form committed relationships and derive the same benefits therefrom that you and I do will not take us back to the kind of simplistic Norman Rockwell society you long for; we never really had it in the first place.

I was watching a CBC comedy retrospective on TV the other night, and they
showed a clip of "Wayne and Schuster", who were more or less a fixture on
Canadian TV through to the late 70s or early eighties. They were pretty
hammy compared to some of the "competition" - very early SCTV and Codco.
However, one of the clips the program showed was the two of them standing in
front of a TV lamenting the decline of civilization - all the murder, mayhem
and "juvenile delinquency". And that's (wait for it ...) just the
commercials!

That was 1959.

M.

Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: I'm not sure there is a purely "logical" explanation here. It just seems rather intuitive (to me) that a marriage is between a man and a woman - it just follows an anatomical and biological (and, in many cases, psychological and cultural), precept.

Depends on what marriage is about; if marriage is about _children,_ well,
yeah, it's anatomically necessary to have a man and a woman to do it the
"natural" way (of course, by that logic, infertile or sterilized or simply
childfree-by-choice people shouldn't get married either.)

If marriage is about _partnership_ and setting up a household together, I
don't see how there's anything "natural" about one way or ther other.

And traditionally, marriage was about _property_.

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:s9m741-7in.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: I'm not sure there is a purely "logical" explanation here. It just
seems rather intuitive (to me) that a marriage is between a man and a woman -
it just follows an anatomical and biological (and, in many cases, psychological and cultural), precept. Depends on what marriage is about; if marriage is about _children,_ well, yeah, it's anatomically necessary to have a man and a woman to do it the "natural" way (of course, by that logic, infertile or sterilized or simply childfree-by-choice people shouldn't get married either.) If marriage is about _partnership_ and setting up a household together, I don't see how there's anything "natural" about one way or ther other. And traditionally, marriage was about _property_.

And politics.

rg

in article s9m741-7in.ln1@mail.sfchat.org, Marcus Ulpius Traianus at
trajan@sfchat.org wrote on 9/23/03 11:22 PM:
Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: I'm not sure there is a purely "logical" explanation here. It just seems rather intuitive (to me) that a marriage is between a man and a woman - it just follows an anatomical and biological (and, in many cases, psychological and cultural), precept. Depends on what marriage is about; if marriage is about _children,_ well, yeah, it's anatomically necessary to have a man and a woman to do it the "natural" way (of course, by that logic, infertile or sterilized or simply childfree-by-choice people shouldn't get married either.) If marriage is about _partnership_ and setting up a household together, I don't see how there's anything "natural" about one way or ther other. And traditionally, marriage was about _property_.


Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between the
individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation of the
species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup could be
effectively impregnated by ... Bill.

M.

"Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message
news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com...
Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between
the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation of
the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup could
be effectively impregnated by ... Bill.

Ew.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com... Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill. Ew. Jayne

We're talking about the other Bill, not me.

in article kUncb.2260$RW4.2115@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co
at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:20 PM:
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com... Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill. Ew. Jayne We're talking about the other Bill, not me.


The problem is, all the Bill's inside your head say basically the same
thing, Bill, so it's virtually impossible for anyone other than you to tell
which Bill they're addressing.

M.

Michael wrote: in article kUncb.2260$RW4.2115@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:20 PM: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com...> Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between> the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation> of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup> could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill. Ew. Jayne We're talking about the other Bill, not me. The problem is, all the Bill's inside your head say basically the same thing, Bill, so it's virtually impossible for anyone other than you to tell which Bill they're addressing. M.

I'm beginning to suspect there are a few in here that have lost touch with
reality.

in article R6ocb.2275$RW4.1957@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co
at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:35 PM:
Michael wrote: in article kUncb.2260$RW4.2115@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:20 PM: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> "Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message> news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com...>>> Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between>> the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation>> of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup>> could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill.>> Ew.>> Jayne We're talking about the other Bill, not me. The problem is, all the Bill's inside your head say basically the same thing, Bill, so it's virtually impossible for anyone other than you to tell which Bill they're addressing. M. I'm beginning to suspect there are a few in here that have lost touch with reality.

I dunno, Bill. There are disproportionately more people here living in the
here-and-now, raising children in two parent families, and trying to teach
those children to respect others and live and let live than people who long
for an idyllic past (you know, the one with institutionalized racism, and
you have your career destroyed because you held an unpopular political
belief, but where it was really, really great to be a middle-aged white
guy?)

So which group is it that's lost touch with reality?

M.

Michael wrote: in article R6ocb.2275$RW4.1957@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:35 PM: Michael wrote: in article kUncb.2260$RW4.2115@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:20 PM:> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> "Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message>> news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com...>>>>> Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between>>> the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and
perpetuation>>> of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this
newsgroup>>> could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill.>>>> Ew.>>>> Jayne>> We're talking about the other Bill, not me.>> The problem is, all the Bill's inside your head say basically the same thing, Bill, so it's virtually impossible for anyone other than you to tell which Bill they're addressing. M. I'm beginning to suspect there are a few in here that have lost touch with reality. I dunno, Bill. There are disproportionately more people here living in the here-and-now, raising children in two parent families,

Two parent families????????????????????????????????????

Bill in Co wrote:
Two parent families????????????????????????????????????

Sure, they exist. I'm married to the father of my three children. But I
wouldn't presume to say it's the best way. IMO the BEST way would be a
three parent family. I've always wanted a wife. I tried to get my
hsuband to find us one because I don't attract the domestic sort for some
reason. (But Butches like me.)

I read a really great essay once by Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe. It
was about how sad it was that so many families only had two parents, when
anyone could see that any child needed three. It was dead on: two to work
at jobs with different attributes and one to carpool.

BTW, my three children are at three different schools in three different
towns and none of them have buses. I know carpooling. I wish we had a
third parent!

Wendy

Michael <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote: in article s9m741-7in.ln1@mail.sfchat.org, Marcus Ulpius Traianus at trajan@sfchat.org wrote on 9/23/03 11:22 PM: If marriage is about _partnership_ and setting up a household together, I don't see how there's anything "natural" about one way or ther other. And traditionally, marriage was about _property_. Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill.

Well, I'd say at this point the institution itself is a matter of cultural
inertia -- it's not necessarily _about_ anything.

Tony and Bill would probably argue it's still about _raising_ children as
opposed to the breeding itself.

rg <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message And traditionally, marriage was about _property_. And politics.

Well, among the political.

There have always been a great many people -- even excluding serfs and
others without property -- who didn't amount to anything in terms of
politics.

Michael wrote:

Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill.

Eeeek!!!!!

Tai
(with tea up my nose)

Bill in Co wrote: Michael wrote:

<snip> I dunno, Bill. There are disproportionately more people here living in the here-and-now, raising children in two parent families, Two parent families????????????????????????????????????

<cough>

I'm married to the father of my children and have been for 22 years, Bill.
We DO live together.


Tai

in article rIocb.2312$RW4.674@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t, Bill in Co
at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 4:15 PM:
Michael wrote: in article R6ocb.2275$RW4.1957@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:35 PM: Michael wrote:> in article kUncb.2260$RW4.2115@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co> at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:20 PM:>>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>>> "Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message>>> news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com...>>>>>>> Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship between>>>> the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and perpetuation>>>> of the species, because, well, just about all the women in this newsgroup>>>> could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill.>>>>>> Ew.>>>>>> Jayne>>>> We're talking about the other Bill, not me.>>>>>>> The problem is, all the Bill's inside your head say basically the same> thing, Bill, so it's virtually impossible for anyone other than you to tell> which Bill they're addressing.>> M. I'm beginning to suspect there are a few in here that have lost touch with reality. I dunno, Bill. There are disproportionately more people here living in the here-and-now, raising children in two parent families, Two parent families????????????????????????????????????


Case in point, Bill.

Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: (Lest you get the impression that I am some right winger, ultra conservative, you might be interested to know I was in favor of the universal health care plan that Hillary was proposing).

While I'm in favor of universal health coverage, the "Clinton proposal"
seemed like a highly flawed way of doing it.

Michael wrote: in article rIocb.2312$RW4.674@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t, Bill in Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 4:15 PM: Michael wrote: in article R6ocb.2275$RW4.1957@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:35 PM:> Michael wrote:>> in article kUncb.2260$RW4.2115@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et, Bill in>> Co at nowhere@earthlink.net wrote on 9/24/03 3:20 PM:>>>>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>>>> "Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message>>>> news:BB973416.22C2C%erosewater@ziplip.com...>>>>>>>>> Isn't that what the institution - as opposed to the relationship>>>>> between the individuals - is still about? It ain't about biology and>>>>> perpetuation of the species, because, well, just about all the women>>>>> in this newsgroup could be effectively impregnated by ... Bill.>>>>>>>> Ew.>>>>>>>> Jayne>>>>>> We're talking about the other Bill, not me.>>>>>>> The problem is, all the Bill's inside your head say basically the same>> thing, Bill, so it's virtually impossible for anyone other than you to>> tell which Bill they're addressing.>>>> M.>> I'm beginning to suspect there are a few in here that have lost touch with> reality.> I dunno, Bill. There are disproportionately more people here living in the here-and-now, raising children in two parent families, Two parent families???????????????????????????????????? Case in point, Bill.

What? Come again?