I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you.
Perhaps this is something you have never considered.

"The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what
marriage is," nor is it to gain free benefits. The benefits that
committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for
granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and
bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or
cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage
communications; and status as next of kin.

Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and
loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is
mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay
marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they
had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of
hate and intolerance. "

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0403021619.703fe78c@posting.google.c om... I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," nor is it to gain free benefits. The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin. Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. "

It always makes me wonder if people that reject gay marriage would accept
offering the same benefits if it were called by a different name - a "legal
partnership" or "family unit contract" or some other non-emotionally loaded
term - but including all the federal/legal benefits of marriage.

Joy

I wish more people could see it the way the article does... makes sense to
me

Kass


"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0403021619.703fe78c@posting.google.c om... I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," nor is it to gain free benefits. The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin. Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. "

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> writes:
"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message news:3754f0b3.0403021619.703fe78c@posting.google.c om... I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," nor is it to gain free benefits. The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin. Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. " It always makes me wonder if people that reject gay marriage would accept offering the same benefits if it were called by a different name - a "legal partnership" or "family unit contract" or some other non-emotionally loaded term - but including all the federal/legal benefits of marriage.

A good question. But part of that question misses the boat because
one of the reasons some gay people _want_ marriage is that they want
to indicate that their alliance is just as valid (romantically,
legally, socially and practically) as that between a man and a woman.


By the way, The Economist (an international weekly news magazine
published in England, for those who don't know what it is) has an
editoral featuring their support of gay marriage.

They go through similar objections to those which have been raised
here (primarily religious ones and the objection that "marriage is all
about children") and argue that religious issues shouldn't determine
US civil policy and that marriage isn't always all about children.

It is interesting to me because in the rest of the world, the
Economist is seen as a relatively conservative publication.

Their summary editorial begins "So at last it is official: George Bush
is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness, and
federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the
implication of his announcment this week that he will support efforts
to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage."

(This is the page 9 leader in the February 28th issue.) Actually the
leader (at least) is on line here for anyone interested. I think it
is well-argued, but of course I agree with the conclusion.


http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459758

Caren wrote: I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is,"

I think it is. Just like if you open the door to polygamy, polygany, and
whatever (any special interest group thinks of) comes next.

Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.
"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0403021619.703fe78c@posting.google.c om... I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," nor is it to gain free benefits. The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin. Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. "

Caren (caren50@msn.com) writes: I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is,"

Of course, it is. Marriage is the union of *one man and one woman*.

*Changing* that to two men, or two women, IS change. But, Political
Newsspeak tries to say that change isn't change.
nor is it to gain free benefits.

Of course, it is.
The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin.

Fine: Let them press for *civil union* laws, which would give them all
that.

But, the reason they want it to be *marriage*, by specific name, is
that they don't want to be different, even though, well, they are.

Its hysterical that, in these days of " tolerance ", and acceptance
of differences as not being issues, now gays want to *make* society
view them as *exactly* the same as straight couples, which they
just aren't.
Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying.

Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and
loving straight couples of the benefits and responsibilities that
they ahve *earned*, is not at all mystifying.
I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position.

Oh, how nice, you just said that people who *don't agree with you are
drooling, ignorant *idiots*.

Well, so much for " tolerance ", not to mention *honesty*...
If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. "

" If gays had thoughtfully considered their position, they would
realise that the message they are sending is one of hate for straights,
and intolerance of others. "

Funny how the responsibility to be tolerant of others, *doesn't*
apply to you or your deeply *hypocritical* ilk.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
Quoting myself: IMO, the government has no business monitoring marriages at all. There should be an `Official Next Of Kin For Legal Purposes' form that you can change as you wish. Whether you've gotten married, or just decided to live platonically with someone, or formed a family from two married couples, or whatever else, is none of the government's business.

I suspect an enduring power of attorney goes part way to doing this but
there should be a way to assign 'disposal of the body' rights to someone
other than the natural next of kin after one's death.

We need a lawyer's input!

Tai

You belong in a cave. This is the 21st Century. Get with the times, boy.

WESLEY MCGRATH wrote: Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.
"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message news:3754f0b3.0403021619.703fe78c@posting.google.c om... I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," nor is it to gain free benefits. The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin. Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. "

"Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Caren wrote: I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," I think it is. Just like if you open the door to polygamy, polygany, and whatever (any special interest group thinks of) comes next.

When ending anti miscegenation laws was discussed, some people said that
if people of different races were allowed to marry, then people would
have to be allowed to marry monkeys. Yet people are allowed to marry
those of other races, and we are still able to forbid marriages with
monkeys.

This is because societies are free to accept some changes and reject
others. The argument you keep making is a
"slippery slope" argument, and it is a logical falacy.

If you really think that allowing two consenting, non-related adults to
marry means that we are *required* to let three consenting, non-related
adults to marry, you need to give an actual reason why this would
happen, other than you are scared of change. Otherwise, it's just a
logical fallacy.

Emma Anne wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Caren wrote: I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," I think it is. Just like if you open the door to polygamy, polygany, and whatever (any special interest group thinks of) comes next. When ending anti miscegenation laws was discussed, some people said that if people of different races were allowed to marry, then people would have to be allowed to marry monkeys. Yet people are allowed to marry those of other races, and we are still able to forbid marriages with monkeys. This is because societies are free to accept some changes and reject others. The argument you keep making is a "slippery slope" argument, and it is a logical falacy. If you really think that allowing two consenting, non-related adults to marry means that we are *required* to let three consenting, non-related adults to marry, you need to give an actual reason why this would happen, other than you are scared of change. Otherwise, it's just a logical fallacy.

The whole thing is a slippery slope. I don't consider a slippery slope a
logical fallacy. Scared of change? Whatever standards and norms and mores we
once had, are fast becoming eroded away, and you can see the effects on society
today (or at least I can).

You seem to believe that we have NOW reached the Age of Enlightenment, that we
are NOW somehow gifted. I would say that is a somewhat arrogant belief
system.

Does this mean there should be no change? No, I never said that. But the
changes that are being proposed are not insignificant.

Dr. Di <dianakd@comcast.net> wrote:


(snip)
But equally you don't change the rules of baseball because someone decides they want to kick the ball instead of throwing it (as an example). If you want to play another game, you are free to do so, but don't change the protocols of the one that the majority currently understand and respect.

What if it is not a game, but a fundamental human right (per the Supreme
Court)? Analogies are sometime useful, but yours is not pertinent.

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0403021619.703fe78c@posting.google.c om... I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. Perhaps this is something you have never considered. "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," nor is it to gain free benefits. The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin. Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. "

What the waves of couples who want to marry reminds me of
is this song:

Solidarity
Steven Van Zandt (Blue Midnight Music, 1983)

Everybody wants the same things don't they
Everybody wants a happy end
They just want to see the game on Saturday
They wanna be somebody's friend

Everybody wants to work for a living
Everybody wants to keep their children warm
Everybody just wants to be forgiven
Everyone wants shelter from the storm

Look at me I ain't your enemy
Why can't we walk on common ground
We don't need to be fighting each other
What we need, what we need is solidarity
...

This won't be stopped.
The tipping point was reached long ago.
It was reached when gay couples
were accepted as fit to be parents.
Once people stopped fearing that
the state would take their children away,
they could feel normal
and not need to hide their nature from friends.

From that point on,
gay people could be challenged
to live healthy lives for their own sakes.
And many chose to be as normal as they could.
These are the people who are lining up for marriage licenses today.

There is a struggle within US gay communities
between the old bar scene
and the "white picket fence, home, and family"
ideal of middle-class life
This conflict gets mentioned
in the annual pride celebration news stories,
such as those in The Stranger,
our local gay friendly weekly.

Tony,
the idea that these people you feel are acting wrongly
are "normal" is a challenge to them,
as well as to traditional straights such as you.
I believe that the fruits of their lives
may pleasantly surprise you over time.
--
Tsam

"Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TDp1c.17450$yZ1.4654@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Emma Anne wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Caren wrote:> I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you.> Perhaps this is something you have never considered.>> "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what> marriage is," I think it is. Just like if you open the door to polygamy, polygany,
and whatever (any special interest group thinks of) comes next. When ending anti miscegenation laws was discussed, some people said that if people of different races were allowed to marry, then people would have to be allowed to marry monkeys. Yet people are allowed to marry those of other races, and we are still able to forbid marriages with monkeys. This is because societies are free to accept some changes and reject others. The argument you keep making is a "slippery slope" argument, and it is a logical falacy. If you really think that allowing two consenting, non-related adults to marry means that we are *required* to let three consenting, non-related adults to marry, you need to give an actual reason why this would happen, other than you are scared of change. Otherwise, it's just a logical fallacy. The whole thing is a slippery slope. I don't consider a slippery slope a logical fallacy. Scared of change? Whatever standards and norms and
mores we once had, are fast becoming eroded away, and you can see the effects on
society today (or at least I can). You seem to believe that we have NOW reached the Age of Enlightenment,
that we are NOW somehow gifted. I would say that is a somewhat arrogant belief system.

Where did she say that?
Does this mean there should be no change? No, I never said that. But
the changes that are being proposed are not insignificant.

Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:TDp1c.17450$yZ1.4654@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Emma Anne wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:> Caren wrote:>> I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you.>> Perhaps this is something you have never considered.>>>> "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what>> marriage is,">> I think it is. Just like if you open the door to polygamy, polygany, and> whatever (any special interest group thinks of) comes next. When ending anti miscegenation laws was discussed, some people said that if people of different races were allowed to marry, then people would have to be allowed to marry monkeys. Yet people are allowed to marry those of other races, and we are still able to forbid marriages with monkeys. This is because societies are free to accept some changes and reject others. The argument you keep making is a "slippery slope" argument, and it is a logical falacy. If you really think that allowing two consenting, non-related adults to marry means that we are *required* to let three consenting, non-related adults to marry, you need to give an actual reason why this would happen, other than you are scared of change. Otherwise, it's just a logical fallacy. The whole thing is a slippery slope. I don't consider a slippery slope a logical fallacy. Scared of change? Whatever standards and norms and mores we once had, are fast becoming eroded away, and you can see the effects on society today (or at least I can). You seem to believe that we have NOW reached the Age of Enlightenment, that we are NOW somehow gifted. I would say that is a somewhat arrogant belief system. Where did she say that?

Let me spell it out for ya. We have NOW reached the Age of Enlightenment,
because we are NOW *opening our minds* to unlimited marriage possibilities,
unlike the (retarded) prehistoric visions of the past xx milleniums. Just
read between the lines. Is that clear enough?

Stephanie Stowe <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote:
I think that what he means is that logic is not what he is using to make his argument. This is a reasonable point of view since societies do not operate in logical ways.

Ah, I see. Yes, there are ways of arguing that aren't based on logic.
I don't even say those ways are invalid in a lot of circumstances. But
when you are trying to dictate what other people do, I think logic is
called for.
But still I think his worry over the slippery slope is pretty well countered by your monkey example.

Good to hear.

Dr. Di <dianakd@comcast.net> wrote:
Please read this remark which illustrates what some are seriously advocating. Diana

I didn't say no one talked about these things or that a few people
didn't even advocate for them. But you can find *someone* who is in
favor of just about *any* position. Isn't The Village Voice a pretty
out there publication?

"Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Let me spell it out for ya. We have NOW reached the Age of Enlightenment, because we are NOW *opening our minds* to unlimited marriage possibilities, unlike the (retarded) prehistoric visions of the past xx milleniums. Just read between the lines. Is that clear enough?

Actually polygamy has been practiced in many other times and places.
Maybe when monogamous marriage was becoming popular, people were worried
that pretty soon people would only marry themselves.

Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote:
Look at me I ain't your enemy Why can't we walk on common ground We don't need to be fighting each other What we need, what we need is solidarity

That song this is reminding me of is this one:

I'm relying on your common decency
so far it hasn't surfaced, but I'm sure it exists
it just takes a while to travel from your head to your fist

I admit yours is much more positive. :-)

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mv4qt5wuo0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... But if it is actually _different_ from marriage, then marriage should still be available to gays. If it _isn't_ different from marriage, then why invent a second institution/name when we've alread got one?

Purely as a work-around for the people who just can't stand the thought of
gay marriage, but might be able to accept equal rights. It's just
marketing.

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Dr. Di <dianakd@comcast.net> wrote: (snip) But equally you don't change the rules of baseball because someone decides they want to kick the ball instead of throwing it (as an example). If you want to play another game, you are free to do so, but don't change the protocols of the one that the majority currently understand and respect. What if it is not a game, but a fundamental human right (per the Supreme Court)? Analogies are sometime useful, but yours is not pertinent.

The analogy also breaks down because the baseball players can continue
to play baseball if someone else wants to have their own different
game. No one is asking that straights be forced to marry people they
don't want to!

Emma Anne wrote: Stephanie Stowe <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: I think that what he means is that logic is not what he is using to make his argument. This is a reasonable point of view since societies do not operate in logical ways. Ah, I see. Yes, there are ways of arguing that aren't based on logic. I don't even say those ways are invalid in a lot of circumstances. But when you are trying to dictate what other people do, I think logic is called for.

Nah. I'm not a computer. Are you?

Emma Anne wrote: Dr. Di <dianakd@comcast.net> wrote: Please read this remark which illustrates what some are seriously advocating. Diana I didn't say no one talked about these things or that a few people didn't even advocate for them. But you can find *someone* who is in favor of just about *any* position. Isn't The Village Voice a pretty out there publication?

I think the Village Voice is the root of all this. :-)

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin.Fine: Let them press for *civil union* laws, which would give them allthat.

No, it wouldn't. All the various laws which depend on the
"married/unmarried" dichotomy would have to be changed to treat civil
unions the same as marrieds, and the list of those laws even in a
single state runs into the hundreds.
But, the reason they want it to be *marriage*, by specific name, isthat they don't want to be different, even though, well, they are.Its hysterical that, in these days of " tolerance ", and acceptanceof differences as not being issues, now gays want to *make* societyview them as *exactly* the same as straight couples, which theyjust aren't.

"Separate but equal" didn't work very well for black folks before the
mid-1960s and it won't work very well for gay people, either.
Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying.Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated andloving straight couples of the benefits and responsibilities thatthey ahve *earned*, is not at all mystifying.

Please explain how letting gay people marry would deprive straight
couples of anything.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

"Dr. Di" <dianakd@comcast.net> wrote:
But equally you don't change the rules of baseball because someone decidesthey want to kick the ball instead of throwing it (as an example). If youwant to play another game, you are free to do so, but don't change theprotocols of the one that the majority currently understand and respect.

This is more like when your group has a baseball game going on one
field, and another group wants to play another baseball game on the
next field, but you don't let them because you've declared that yours
is the only group allowed to use either field.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Caren (caren50@msn.com) writes: "Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<7ob1c.16465$yZ1.11447@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>... Caren wrote: > I read this in the paper today Tony and it reminded me of you. > Perhaps this is something you have never considered. > > "The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what > marriage is," I think it is. Just like if you open the door to polygamy, polygany, and whatever (any special interest group thinks of) comes next. Try looking at it through someone else's eyes, not through your own. Why ? The complainers demanding " equal rights " *without* equal *responsiblity* surely aren't doing that.

Whoever you are talking about here, it isn't proponents of legalizing
gay marriage.

Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:<c25uqn$vj$1@pcls4.std.com>... I wrote (originally in 1992 but repeated recently):
Is there any reason why the first pair should get extra privileges the other groups shouldn't get? Should a wife get to make medical decisions for her husband, but sisters shouldn't be able to do so for each other? Should a husband get a tax break on inheriting the house that a sister shouldn't? The two women in Group D will both be paying for upkeep on the house, cleaning it and weeding the garden and watering the plants. Why should one of them not be able to inherit the house and derive the benefits of her labor?

As you point out, the marriage laws have their roots in the English
legal tradition. The system was designed to ensure that property was
passed down through the male line. That's why marriage was intended to
be a contract between a man and a woman. Women couldn't inherit
property, but if she married a man, at least she could enjoy it while
she was alive, and eventually the property would go to her male heirs.

Times have certainly changed; I think it's natural that the laws
should change accordingly.

jen

shinypenny wrote: Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:<c25uqn$vj$1@pcls4.std.com>... I wrote (originally in 1992 but repeated recently): Is there any reason why the first pair should get extra privileges the other groups shouldn't get? Should a wife get to make medical decisions for her husband, but sisters shouldn't be able to do so for each other? Should a husband get a tax break on inheriting the house that a sister shouldn't? The two women in Group D will both be paying for upkeep on the house, cleaning it and weeding the garden and watering the plants. Why should one of them not be able to inherit the house and derive the benefits of her labor? As you point out, the marriage laws have their roots in the English legal tradition. The system was designed to ensure that property was passed down through the male line. That's why marriage was intended to be a contract between a man and a woman. Women couldn't inherit property, but if she married a man, at least she could enjoy it while she was alive, and eventually the property would go to her male heirs. Times have certainly changed; I think it's natural that the laws should change accordingly. jen

"Natural"? But the "laws" of nature (incl. siblings) haven't changed,
though.

"Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net>
replied to my post:

[snip most]
Faithfully committed gay couples are a lot like electron diffraction, one can argue passionately that they can NOT exist, but these arguments are not based on experience. SEEING that electrons act as waves in the lab sure changed my mind. I don't care how faithfully they are committed, they can't have babies (at least naturally; I'm not talking about TEST TUBE BABIES)! Children form
the basis for the sustenance of a society. I know you consider that just incidental to the foundational core of a society, but I don't, whether or
not they "choose" to have kids or not.

People of all kinds raise children not conceived within a marriage.
I have a straight Catholic cousin whose daughter from artificial
insemination is in college right now.
Also, many gay couples adopt children.

Why would the way children are conceived
to justify ignoring the benefits to society
of these children having stable homes?
--

By the way,
I like the humor in your userid.

Tsam

Tsam Nami wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly curmudgeon@earthlink.net> replied to my post: [snip most] Faithfully committed gay couples are a lot like electron diffraction, one can argue passionately that they can NOT exist, but these arguments are not based on experience. SEEING that electrons act as waves in the lab sure changed my mind. I don't care how faithfully they are committed, they can't have babies (at least naturally; I'm not talking about TEST TUBE BABIES)! Children form the basis for the sustenance of a society. I know you consider that just incidental to the foundational core of a society, but I don't, whether or
not they "choose" to have kids or not. People of all kinds raise children not conceived within a marriage. I have a straight Catholic cousin whose daughter from artificial insemination is in college right now. Also, many gay couples adopt children. Why would the way children are conceived to justify ignoring the benefits to society of these children having stable homes?

I'm a "natural" kind of guy, meaning, like nature, as the Lord designed it to
be. It's only when men start medling with nature, that things go downhill -
fast. (Of course, I am using a computer right now, but.....)
By the way, I like the humor in your userid. Tsam

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aoishkcd0y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes: (Does anyone remember the difference between an argument and contradiction? ;-) IIRC, an argument is an intellectual process, a contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
No, it isn't.
--
Tsam

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Thats the basis of " family ". *Generations*. Note the word " generate ".

OK. Now you are saying "gays can't form families because I, Andre,
define families to be groups headed by a male-female couple."

I have a different opinion, but there is nothing to argue about.
Gays CAN'T generate. Gay couples, in spite of the definition you have offered, can and do create families and raise children. <yawn> Nope, they can't. Did you *flunk* Biology 101 ? Sheesh. To quote you: Next ! > What did _you_ do to "earn" your right to get married? Ibid. Wait. So you earned your right to get married by creating children? By being *able to create AND raise children in a family that PROVIDES one man and one woman...

This is the strangest definition of "earn" I've ever heard. Most
definitions of earn involve doing something in exchange for something
else. Here you have "earned" the right to marry a woman by being a
fertile man.

Two bizarre notions. One is that merely by being born as you are you
have "earned" anything. Sounds like you don't really think this is an
earned privilege, it sounds like you believe it is an entitlement
which you'd like to enjoy but withhold from others.

The other bizarre notion is that if you were an infertile male, you
would _not_ have "earned" the right to marry a woman.

Surely you can recognize that both of these points are nonsensical.

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aoishkcd0y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes: (Does anyone remember the difference between an argument and contradiction? ;-) IIRC, an argument is an intellectual process, a contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. No, it isn't.

Yes it is!


Actually we should just skip to the end:

"I've had enough of this!"

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:

<Snip>
That is, the thing we now call a "marriage license" should just be renamed as a "family unit formation license", and any two (or more) competent adults should be able to request one and legally become a family unit.

How about a "civil union license" which gives exactly the same benefits as
a marriage license in *addition* to the standard marriage license?

-Tony

PS: ****! I promised myself I'd say the hell out of this thread. IHBT

--
"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.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:31:53 GMT, Tsam Nami
<tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aoishkcd0y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes: (Does anyone remember the difference between an argument and contradiction? ;-) IIRC, an argument is an intellectual process, a contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. No, it isn't.

LOL!!!!!!

-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.

Tony Miller wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:31:53 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aoishkcd0y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes:> (Does anyone remember the difference> between an argument and contradiction? ;-) IIRC, an argument is an intellectual process, a contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. No, it isn't. LOL!!!!!!

This is funny? I find it kinda pathetic.

Tony Miller wrote:
That is, the thing we now call a "marriage license" should just be renamed as a "family unit formation license", and any two (or more) competent adults should be able to request one and legally become a family unit. How about a "civil union license" which gives exactly the same benefits as a marriage license in *addition* to the standard marriage license?

It's redundant and unnecessary. There is no need for two identical
licenses. Marriage remains a religious institution.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:28:38 GMT, Bill in Co.
<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:31:53 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aoishkcd0y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu...> "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes:>> (Does anyone remember the difference>> between an argument and contradiction? ;-)>> IIRC, an argument is an intellectual process, a contradiction is just> an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.> No, it isn't. LOL!!!!!! This is funny? I find it kinda pathetic.

Go back to sleep, Bill.

-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." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qBR1c.21997$aT1.7473@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Tony Miller wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:31:53 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aoishkcd0y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu...> "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes:>> (Does anyone remember the difference>> between an argument and contradiction? ;-)>> IIRC, an argument is an intellectual process, a contradiction is just> an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.> No, it isn't. LOL!!!!!! This is funny? I find it kinda pathetic.
Many agreed with you,
when Monty Python originally did this sketch.

(MP fans are common enough in IS
that the most popular object-oriented
is named Python, for MP. I'm studying
it off and on during my job search.)
--
Tsam

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: That is, the thing we now call a "marriage license" should just be renamed as a "family unit formation license", and any two (or more) competent adults should be able to request one and legally become a family unit. How about a "civil union license" which gives exactly the same benefits as a marriage license in *addition* to the standard marriage license? It's redundant and unnecessary. There is no need for two identical licenses. Marriage remains a religious institution.

Some of us like being married, and don't want to be involved in a religious
institution.

Redundancy is unnecessary, but not necessarily harmful. I'd say that Tony's
proposal would be OK, _if_ it were truly equal. The problem is that
"separate but equal" has been indicted as being an oxymoron.

Perhaps as a compromise, start with a "civil union license," and require
some kind of judicial review of the way things work out in 5 years? If it's
apparantly non-equal then, replace it with gay marriage; if it's genuinely
equal, let it stand until someone can prove it isn't.