Thursday night DF and I had an interesting date. We decided to do a
"theme" night. First we had drinks at a local, upscale gay bar. Then
we saw a play called "Hey Let's Get Married: How Timmy and Teddy
celebrated their 20th anniversary." It was fairly amateur, but fun.

Then we drove by the Mass state house, saw all the picketers outside,
parked the car and on a whim joined them. We found a discarded sign
"Another Hetero Couple in Support of Gay Marriage" and grabbed it.
Everyone was singing and cars were honking as they passed. Just a few
thousand people who'd been standing outside since 2 pm in the cold.
About 10 minutes into this they decided to let everyone into the state
house, so we went through the security line too. Hung out until about
11 pm (the vote was taken after we left).

Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.

jen

>Thursday night DF and I had an interesting date. We decided to do a"theme" night. First we had drinks at a local, upscale gay bar. Thenwe saw a play called "Hey Let's Get Married: How Timmy and Teddycelebrated their 20th anniversary." It was fairly amateur, but fun.Then we drove by the Mass state house, saw all the picketers outside,parked the car and on a whim joined them. We found a discarded sign"Another Hetero Couple in Support of Gay Marriage" and grabbed it.Everyone was singing and cars were honking as they passed. Just a fewthousand people who'd been standing outside since 2 pm in the cold.About 10 minutes into this they decided to let everyone into the statehouse, so we went through the security line too. Hung out until about11 pm (the vote was taken after we left).Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.jen

Sounds like an exciting time, Jen. I've taken part in a couple of rallies, and
they were always a rush.

Sheila

shinypenny wrote:
Thursday night DF and I had an interesting date. We decided to do a "theme" night. First we had drinks at a local, upscale gay bar. Then we saw a play called "Hey Let's Get Married: How Timmy and Teddy celebrated their 20th anniversary." It was fairly amateur, but fun. Then we drove by the Mass state house, saw all the picketers outside, parked the car and on a whim joined them. We found a discarded sign "Another Hetero Couple in Support of Gay Marriage" and grabbed it. Everyone was singing and cars were honking as they passed. Just a few thousand people who'd been standing outside since 2 pm in the cold. About 10 minutes into this they decided to let everyone into the state house, so we went through the security line too. Hung out until about 11 pm (the vote was taken after we left). Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making. jen

I do, too. I've written all my reps (and they're all in favor of gay
marriage). I get regular emails back from them discussing the
machinations of the debate. There's just no way that bigotry is going
to make it into the Constitution. (Did you know that the Massachusetts
constitution was the model for the U.S.'s, most particularly with regard
to the Bill of Rights?)

If they resort to Civil Unions then my husband and I will get a Civil Union.

Dally

On 13 Mar 2004 10:45:38 -0800, shinypenny
<shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: Thursday night DF and I had an interesting date. We decided to do a "theme" night. First we had drinks at a local, upscale gay bar. Then we saw a play called "Hey Let's Get Married: How Timmy and Teddy celebrated their 20th anniversary." It was fairly amateur, but fun. Then we drove by the Mass state house, saw all the picketers outside, parked the car and on a whim joined them. We found a discarded sign "Another Hetero Couple in Support of Gay Marriage" and grabbed it. Everyone was singing and cars were honking as they passed. Just a few thousand people who'd been standing outside since 2 pm in the cold. About 10 minutes into this they decided to let everyone into the state house, so we went through the security line too. Hung out until about 11 pm (the vote was taken after we left). Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.

Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)

-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.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:29:44 -0500, Dally
<dally@myself.com> wrote: shinypenny wrote: Thursday night DF and I had an interesting date. We decided to do a "theme" night. First we had drinks at a local, upscale gay bar. Then we saw a play called "Hey Let's Get Married: How Timmy and Teddy celebrated their 20th anniversary." It was fairly amateur, but fun. Then we drove by the Mass state house, saw all the picketers outside, parked the car and on a whim joined them. We found a discarded sign "Another Hetero Couple in Support of Gay Marriage" and grabbed it. Everyone was singing and cars were honking as they passed. Just a few thousand people who'd been standing outside since 2 pm in the cold. About 10 minutes into this they decided to let everyone into the state house, so we went through the security line too. Hung out until about 11 pm (the vote was taken after we left). Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making. jen I do, too. I've written all my reps (and they're all in favor of gay marriage). I get regular emails back from them discussing the machinations of the debate. There's just no way that bigotry is going to make it into the Constitution. (Did you know that the Massachusetts constitution was the model for the U.S.'s, most particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights?)

It's looking like it does.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040312/dcf022_1.html
If they resort to Civil Unions then my husband and I will get a Civil Union.

Cool. Go for it.

-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.

>> Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)-Tony

I marched in a pro-choice rally in DC... gosh... in the late 80's, I guess it
was. Somehow I ended up walking beside Leonard Nimoy and Morgan Fairchild.
Nimoy was quite pleasant. There were about 200K people there, and it was a
peaceful rally. Most of the anti-choice people stayed on the sidelines and
were ignored by the rest of us.

Sheila

On 14 Mar 2004 18:16:05 GMT, WhansaMi
<whansami@aol.com> wrote: Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)-Tony I marched in a pro-choice rally in DC... gosh... in the late 80's, I guess it was. Somehow I ended up walking beside Leonard Nimoy and Morgan Fairchild. Nimoy was quite pleasant. There were about 200K people there, and it was a peaceful rally. Most of the anti-choice people stayed on the sidelines and were ignored by the rest of us.

You misspelled pro-abortion, and pro-life.

-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.

>WhansaMi<whansami@aol.com> wrote:> Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)-Tony I marched in a pro-choice rally in DC... gosh... in the late 80's, I guessit was. Somehow I ended up walking beside Leonard Nimoy and Morgan Fairchild. Nimoy was quite pleasant. There were about 200K people there, and it was a peaceful rally. Most of the anti-choice people stayed on the sidelines and were ignored by the rest of us.You misspelled pro-abortion, and pro-life.-Tony

Nope. I wrote exactly what I meant!

Sheila

WhansaMi wrote: WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote:>> Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.>> Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)>> -Tony I marched in a pro-choice rally in DC... gosh... in the late 80's, I guess it was. Somehow I ended up walking beside Leonard Nimoy and Morgan Fairchild. Nimoy was quite pleasant. There were about 200K people there, and it was a peaceful rally. Most of the anti-choice people stayed on the sidelines and were ignored by the rest of us. You misspelled pro-abortion, and pro-life. -Tony Nope. I wrote exactly what I meant! Sheila

It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice, as in "the woman has a choice". Get
it?

>>> WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote:>>> Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.>>>> Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)>>>> -Tony>> I marched in a pro-choice rally in DC... gosh... in the late 80's, Iguess> it was. Somehow I ended up walking beside Leonard Nimoy and Morgan> Fairchild.> Nimoy was quite pleasant. There were about 200K people there, and it wasa> peaceful rally. Most of the anti-choice people stayed on the sidelinesand> were ignored by the rest of us. You misspelled pro-abortion, and pro-life. -Tony Nope. I wrote exactly what I meant! SheilaIt's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice, as in "the woman has a choice".Getit?

Heh. I'll be happy to call it "pro-abortion rights" if it makes Tony happy.
:-) But, yes, "pro-abortion" would be a misnomer. I know some people over in
alt.support.childfree who are pretty much "pro-abortion" (as in, EVERYONE
should have an abortion) and I certainly don't belong in that group. :-)

Sheila

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:54:48 GMT, Bill in Co.
<surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: WhansaMi wrote: WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote:>>> Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.>>>> Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)>>>> -Tony>> I marched in a pro-choice rally in DC... gosh... in the late 80's, I guess> it was. Somehow I ended up walking beside Leonard Nimoy and Morgan> Fairchild.> Nimoy was quite pleasant. There were about 200K people there, and it was a> peaceful rally. Most of the anti-choice people stayed on the sidelines and> were ignored by the rest of us. You misspelled pro-abortion, and pro-life. -Tony Nope. I wrote exactly what I meant! Sheila It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice, as in "the woman has a choice". Get it?

It's pro-choice like "the murderer has a choice".

-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 Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:54:48 GMT, Bill in Co. <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: WhansaMi wrote:> WhansaMi> <whansami@aol.com> wrote:>>>> Kinda cool to feel like we were a part of history in the making.>>>>>> Yup. Like the people who protested against Roe v. Wade ;)>>>>>> -Tony>>>> I marched in a pro-choice rally in DC... gosh... in the late 80's, I
guess>> it was. Somehow I ended up walking beside Leonard Nimoy and Morgan>> Fairchild.>>> Nimoy was quite pleasant. There were about 200K people there, and it was>> a peaceful rally. Most of the anti-choice people stayed on the sidelines>> and were ignored by the rest of us.>> You misspelled pro-abortion, and pro-life.>> -Tony> Nope. I wrote exactly what I meant! Sheila It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice, as in "the woman has a choice". Get it? It's pro-choice like "the murderer has a choice".

No, it's pro-choice, in that if you don't like their choices, you guys can get
off of the pot, and take care of their babies for them. IOW, put up or shut
up.

>> It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice, as in "the woman has a choice".Get it?It's pro-choice like "the murderer has a choice"

<sigh> Normally, I wouldn't mind having a discussion about abortion, except,
in this case that it is clear that you can't do it without resorting to
incendiary rhetoric, so I think I will decline.

Too bad. I was already thinking about what I would say.

Sheila

WhansaMi wrote: It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice, as in "the woman has a choice".
Get it? It's pro-choice like "the murderer has a choice" <sigh> Normally, I wouldn't mind having a discussion about abortion, except, in this case that it is clear that you can't do it without resorting to incendiary rhetoric, so I think I will decline. Too bad. I was already thinking about what I would say. Sheila

You took the higher road, Sheila, and I (slipped down) to the lower one. Oh
well. :-) But this issue does get my goat, especially when someone just asks
for it. LOL.

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes:
Larry Kessler wrote: Yes, it is. A much better analogy is interracial marriage, which was illegal in many states until 1967. Some people were violently opposed to it for many of the same reasons people now oppose gay marriages. Except that interracial marriage didn't change the definition of "marriage" one bit. Being opposed to something out of bigotry is completely different to being opposed to something because of it's potential to destroy the institution.

But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy
the institution" (or even to damage it).

And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely
the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry
whites.

So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed
to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with
any actual reasons.
Here's my solid reason: IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not voicing my support for or against gay marriage, I'm voicing my support for the rule of law!

_That's_ your reason? So would you have also been opposed to making
interracial marriage legal when it was illegal? After all, it was the
law.

Most advances in civil rights in the U.S. haven't occurred because a
majority agreed that some discrimination or prejudice was morally
wrong. They've occurred because courts have intervened.
Just as civil rights (which were already implicitly granted in the Constitution) were clarified by law,

Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial
action."
the same should happen to gay marriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported by a majority back in day,

Whoa. Give me an example.
whereas today gay marriage legislation doesn't enjoy that kind of support.

So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported
by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed
to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away
that right? Surely you don't actually mean that!

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes:
Larry Kessler wrote: Yes, it is. A much better analogy is interracial marriage, which was illegal in many states until 1967. Some people were violently opposed to it for many of the same reasons people now oppose gay marriages. Except that interracial marriage didn't change the definition of "marriage" one bit. Being opposed to something out of bigotry is completely different to being opposed to something because of it's potential to destroy the institution.

But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy
the institution" (or even to damage it).

And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely
the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry
whites.

So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed
to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with
any actual reasons.
Here's my solid reason: IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not voicing my support for or against gay marriage, I'm voicing my support for the rule of law!

_That's_ your reason? So would you have also been opposed to making
interracial marriage legal when it was illegal? After all, it was the
law.

Most advances in civil rights in the U.S. haven't occurred because a
majority agreed that some discrimination or prejudice was morally
wrong. They've occurred because courts have intervened.
Just as civil rights (which were already implicitly granted in the Constitution) were clarified by law,

Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial
action."
the same should happen to gay marriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported by a majority back in day,

Whoa. Give me an example.
whereas today gay marriage legislation doesn't enjoy that kind of support.

So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported
by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed
to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away
that right? Surely you don't actually mean that!

Doug Anderson wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Larry Kessler wrote: Yes, it is. A much better analogy is interracial marriage, which was illegal in many states until 1967. Some people were violently opposed to it for many of the same reasons people now oppose gay marriages. Except that interracial marriage didn't change the definition of "marriage" one bit. Being opposed to something out of bigotry is completely different to being opposed to something because of it's potential to destroy the institution. But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it).

I think you missed the question Doug (how convenient). The question is, how
will it benefit the *institution*? Not the individual, but the
*institution*. Which, as always, you haven't answered, nor can you, I
expect. (ISTJ). Some people want to strengthen the institution of
marriage, which is dissolving in front of our eyes (in case you hadn't
noticed).
And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites.

Only in a mind that exhibits tunnel vision. But - if the shoe fits, keep on
wearing it (of course, I can't talk too much on this either, LOL. Oh well,
sometimes the things we see in others, that bother us so much, are mirrored in
ourselves).
So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons.

Well, we agree on one part. "As far as you can see..". Perhaps you need
to expand your horizons. Keep working on it. (maybe we all need to expand
our horizons, come to think about it)

Doug Anderson wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Larry Kessler wrote: Yes, it is. A much better analogy is interracial marriage, which was illegal in many states until 1967. Some people were violently opposed to it for many of the same reasons people now oppose gay marriages. Except that interracial marriage didn't change the definition of "marriage" one bit. Being opposed to something out of bigotry is completely different to being opposed to something because of it's potential to destroy the institution. But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it).

I think you missed the question Doug (how convenient). The question is, how
will it benefit the *institution*? Not the individual, but the
*institution*. Which, as always, you haven't answered, nor can you, I
expect. (ISTJ). Some people want to strengthen the institution of
marriage, which is dissolving in front of our eyes (in case you hadn't
noticed).
And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites.

Only in a mind that exhibits tunnel vision. But - if the shoe fits, keep on
wearing it (of course, I can't talk too much on this either, LOL. Oh well,
sometimes the things we see in others, that bother us so much, are mirrored in
ourselves).
So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons.

Well, we agree on one part. "As far as you can see..". Perhaps you need
to expand your horizons. Keep working on it. (maybe we all need to expand
our horizons, come to think about it)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:41:22 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Larry Kessler wrote: Yes, it is. A much better analogy is interracial marriage, which was illegal in many states until 1967. Some people were violently opposed to it for many of the same reasons people now oppose gay marriages. Except that interracial marriage didn't change the definition of "marriage" one bit. Being opposed to something out of bigotry is completely different to being opposed to something because of it's potential to destroy the institution. But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it).

Oh, heck, Doug. It's been described countless times,it just hasn't been
described in a way you accept.

When my wife and I got married, the institution of marriage was definied
explicitely most places and implicitely everywhere else as between a man
and a woman. I willingly entered into that institution with my wife.

Had the institution been defined as "any two people", or "any two
mammals", or "any two animals", my wife and I may not have chosen to enter
into that particular institution. By changing the definition of marriage
(which you have to do either directly with a law, or indirectly by
judicial fiat) you turn marriage into something my wife and I very
possibly would not want to be a part of.

And you are surprised that we are fighting for it?
And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites.

Allowing a black to marry a white does not substantially alter the
institution that my wife and I entered into.
So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons.

Of course you believe that. I haven't heard any compelling societal
benefit to gay marriage except "if you don't want them to marry you're a
bigot". I guess I'm a bigot then. But you still haven't come up with a
valid societal benefit.
Here's my solid reason: IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not voicing my support for or against gay marriage, I'm voicing my support for the rule of law! _That's_ your reason? So would you have also been opposed to making interracial marriage legal when it was illegal? After all, it was the law.

That would be up to the individual person based on their belief system.
Gays are welcome to try and legislate a definition change of marriage.
This is the beauty of living in a representative republic.
Most advances in civil rights in the U.S. haven't occurred because a majority agreed that some discrimination or prejudice was morally wrong. They've occurred because courts have intervened.

You still haven't convinced me that "gay marriage" is a "right". You seem
to delineate a lot of "rights" as "you got it, I want it, it's a right".
Just as civil rights (which were already implicitly granted in the Constitution) were clarified by law, Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action."

Or legislated by judicial fiat.
the same should happen to gay marriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported by a majority back in day, Whoa. Give me an example.

It had to be. Otherwise there might have been an
"anti-interracial-marriage" amendment.
whereas today gay marriage legislation doesn't enjoy that kind of support. So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away that right? Surely you don't actually mean that!

Of course. Play to his "guilt". Make him feel bad. Call him names.

Had 3/4s of Congress and 2/3rds of the States believed that blacks
shouldn't be allowed to vote, they wouldn't be voting.

In that case it would be legal, constitutional (though not ethical IMO).
But not every law that is passed is ethical.

Morality is defined by the society we live in. And a society (like the
smaller society of a "community") has a right to have community standards.
The community has the right to define what they believe is right and wrong
without interference from Government except in the case of violation of
constitutional standards.

When it becomes federal, it becomes everybody's business, and everybody
gets together and decides what they want to do. Should "the people" want
to repeal the First Amendment they can. Should "the people" want to make
Islam the official religion of the US, they can. And how dare you imply
that by exercising my legal right to petition congress to pass an
amendment I want I am a bad person.

-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.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:41:22 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Larry Kessler wrote: Yes, it is. A much better analogy is interracial marriage, which was illegal in many states until 1967. Some people were violently opposed to it for many of the same reasons people now oppose gay marriages. Except that interracial marriage didn't change the definition of "marriage" one bit. Being opposed to something out of bigotry is completely different to being opposed to something because of it's potential to destroy the institution. But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it).

Oh, heck, Doug. It's been described countless times,it just hasn't been
described in a way you accept.

When my wife and I got married, the institution of marriage was definied
explicitely most places and implicitely everywhere else as between a man
and a woman. I willingly entered into that institution with my wife.

Had the institution been defined as "any two people", or "any two
mammals", or "any two animals", my wife and I may not have chosen to enter
into that particular institution. By changing the definition of marriage
(which you have to do either directly with a law, or indirectly by
judicial fiat) you turn marriage into something my wife and I very
possibly would not want to be a part of.

And you are surprised that we are fighting for it?
And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites.

Allowing a black to marry a white does not substantially alter the
institution that my wife and I entered into.
So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons.

Of course you believe that. I haven't heard any compelling societal
benefit to gay marriage except "if you don't want them to marry you're a
bigot". I guess I'm a bigot then. But you still haven't come up with a
valid societal benefit.
Here's my solid reason: IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not voicing my support for or against gay marriage, I'm voicing my support for the rule of law! _That's_ your reason? So would you have also been opposed to making interracial marriage legal when it was illegal? After all, it was the law.

That would be up to the individual person based on their belief system.
Gays are welcome to try and legislate a definition change of marriage.
This is the beauty of living in a representative republic.
Most advances in civil rights in the U.S. haven't occurred because a majority agreed that some discrimination or prejudice was morally wrong. They've occurred because courts have intervened.

You still haven't convinced me that "gay marriage" is a "right". You seem
to delineate a lot of "rights" as "you got it, I want it, it's a right".
Just as civil rights (which were already implicitly granted in the Constitution) were clarified by law, Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action."

Or legislated by judicial fiat.
the same should happen to gay marriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported by a majority back in day, Whoa. Give me an example.

It had to be. Otherwise there might have been an
"anti-interracial-marriage" amendment.
whereas today gay marriage legislation doesn't enjoy that kind of support. So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away that right? Surely you don't actually mean that!

Of course. Play to his "guilt". Make him feel bad. Call him names.

Had 3/4s of Congress and 2/3rds of the States believed that blacks
shouldn't be allowed to vote, they wouldn't be voting.

In that case it would be legal, constitutional (though not ethical IMO).
But not every law that is passed is ethical.

Morality is defined by the society we live in. And a society (like the
smaller society of a "community") has a right to have community standards.
The community has the right to define what they believe is right and wrong
without interference from Government except in the case of violation of
constitutional standards.

When it becomes federal, it becomes everybody's business, and everybody
gets together and decides what they want to do. Should "the people" want
to repeal the First Amendment they can. Should "the people" want to make
Islam the official religion of the US, they can. And how dare you imply
that by exercising my legal right to petition congress to pass an
amendment I want I am a bad person.

-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.

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it). I'm just going to say that illegally declaring anything you want a marriage demeans the institution.

I'll buy that, but it seems irrelevant.
And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites. Are you sure you want to make that statement?

I'll retract it if I here another argument, but the ones I've heard so
far center around:

- slippery slope: If you allows gays to marry then soon anything
can marry anything else (a commonly heard justification for
miscegenation laws) and

- it is important for children to be raised by one man and one woman
(mirroring the "it's important for children to be raised by
parents of the same 'race'" argument).

You've just added:

- it is the law, so it doesn't matter if the law is just or respects
the constitution, which was _also_ an argument raised in defense
of miscegenation laws.
So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons. I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but I want gays to come and make the argument to me in the public domain,

A number of people have made eloquent arguments here in favor of
allowing gay marriage. Do the arguments only count if they come from
someone gay? It is pretty easy to find those arguments in the public
domain at the current time.
rather than forcing _their_ choice down my throat with activist courts. Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action." You're unfamiliar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

That is a shining example of legislative action, for which LBJ
deserves a great deal of credit. It would be wonderful to see
leadership of that sort coming from elected officials today. Note
however that it is a stark exception, and that legislative action has
more often been used to withhold civil rights.

Furthmore note the context in which it happened. It was after some
dramatic cases of "judicial activism" which extended civil rights
against minority wishes in the communities where this happened.

Here are a few highlights:

Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954) makes "separate but equal" illegal
(judicial)

Montgomery segregated buses (the Rosa Parks case) (1956) (judicial)

Meredith v. Fair (1962) made it illegal for the University of
Mississippi to refuse admission to qualified
blacks. (judicial)

Civil Rights Act (1964) (legislative).

Loving v. State of Virginia (1967) finding laws banning interracial
marriage unconsitutional. (judicial)
the same should happen to gaymarriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported bya majority back in day, Whoa. Give me an example. "The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. It appeared that a vocal majority of churches, representatives and senators, and the nation favored civil rights legislation. The National Opinion Research Center discovered this change of attitude in a sample survey of northern whites in 1963. The Center determined that the number who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30% in twenty years, to 72% in 1963. The proportion favoring school integration had risen even more impressively to 75%. "

I remain unconvinced. I suspect that a majority of
northern whites favor gay marriage now too, but that isn't
representative.
So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away that right? Surely you don't actually mean that! <sigh> Here, I can't say it any better than Den Beste: "Gays are not the only people who prevented from legally marrying those they love. California also does not recognize plural marriage, marriage to children, marriage to animals, and marriage to dead people. (You think I'm joking about that?)

Sigh. Slippery slope argument. See above. If you are willing to bring
non-adults or non-humans into the discussion then it is very hard to
take you seriously.

Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I
asked a question about whether the majority should always determine
who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to
animals and dolls.

If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would
it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or
vote?

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it). I'm just going to say that illegally declaring anything you want a marriage demeans the institution.

I'll buy that, but it seems irrelevant.
And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites. Are you sure you want to make that statement?

I'll retract it if I here another argument, but the ones I've heard so
far center around:

- slippery slope: If you allows gays to marry then soon anything
can marry anything else (a commonly heard justification for
miscegenation laws) and

- it is important for children to be raised by one man and one woman
(mirroring the "it's important for children to be raised by
parents of the same 'race'" argument).

You've just added:

- it is the law, so it doesn't matter if the law is just or respects
the constitution, which was _also_ an argument raised in defense
of miscegenation laws.
So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons. I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but I want gays to come and make the argument to me in the public domain,

A number of people have made eloquent arguments here in favor of
allowing gay marriage. Do the arguments only count if they come from
someone gay? It is pretty easy to find those arguments in the public
domain at the current time.
rather than forcing _their_ choice down my throat with activist courts. Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action." You're unfamiliar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

That is a shining example of legislative action, for which LBJ
deserves a great deal of credit. It would be wonderful to see
leadership of that sort coming from elected officials today. Note
however that it is a stark exception, and that legislative action has
more often been used to withhold civil rights.

Furthmore note the context in which it happened. It was after some
dramatic cases of "judicial activism" which extended civil rights
against minority wishes in the communities where this happened.

Here are a few highlights:

Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954) makes "separate but equal" illegal
(judicial)

Montgomery segregated buses (the Rosa Parks case) (1956) (judicial)

Meredith v. Fair (1962) made it illegal for the University of
Mississippi to refuse admission to qualified
blacks. (judicial)

Civil Rights Act (1964) (legislative).

Loving v. State of Virginia (1967) finding laws banning interracial
marriage unconsitutional. (judicial)
the same should happen to gaymarriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported bya majority back in day, Whoa. Give me an example. "The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. It appeared that a vocal majority of churches, representatives and senators, and the nation favored civil rights legislation. The National Opinion Research Center discovered this change of attitude in a sample survey of northern whites in 1963. The Center determined that the number who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30% in twenty years, to 72% in 1963. The proportion favoring school integration had risen even more impressively to 75%. "

I remain unconvinced. I suspect that a majority of
northern whites favor gay marriage now too, but that isn't
representative.
So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away that right? Surely you don't actually mean that! <sigh> Here, I can't say it any better than Den Beste: "Gays are not the only people who prevented from legally marrying those they love. California also does not recognize plural marriage, marriage to children, marriage to animals, and marriage to dead people. (You think I'm joking about that?)

Sigh. Slippery slope argument. See above. If you are willing to bring
non-adults or non-humans into the discussion then it is very hard to
take you seriously.

Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I
asked a question about whether the majority should always determine
who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to
animals and dolls.

If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would
it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or
vote?

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cyfzc5izt9.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or vote?

Is being left-handed a sin, Doug? Slice it anyway you want to, I see the
arguments against equal rights for gays as coming down to one of two things
(1) fear of that which is different, or (2) a belief that it is morally
wrong to be gay and that those who act immorally should be punished (Often
1 masquerades as 2.) Rational argument has a hard time prevailing against
either of those.

Ted

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cyfzc5izt9.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or vote?

Is being left-handed a sin, Doug? Slice it anyway you want to, I see the
arguments against equal rights for gays as coming down to one of two things
(1) fear of that which is different, or (2) a belief that it is morally
wrong to be gay and that those who act immorally should be punished (Often
1 masquerades as 2.) Rational argument has a hard time prevailing against
either of those.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cyfzc5izt9.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or vote? Is being left-handed a sin, Doug?

No, I'm fine with it -- umm, some of my best friends are sinistral.

The context was that sirloin seemed to be asserting (maybe I
misunderstood) that civil rights should only be extended to a group if
a majority favors doing so.

I find that position (which maybe isn't really what he meant)
abhorrent.
Slice it anyway you want to, I see the arguments against equal rights for gays as coming down to one of two things (1) fear of that which is different, or (2) a belief that it is morally wrong to be gay and that those who act immorally should be punished (Often 1 masquerades as 2.) Rational argument has a hard time prevailing against either of those.

Yes, I agree with your analysis. And with the point about rational
argument. However when someone makes a cogent-sounding but fallacious
argument in public, I think it should be rebutted just in case it
accidentally convinces someone who was previously unconvinced.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cyfzc5izt9.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or vote? Is being left-handed a sin, Doug?

No, I'm fine with it -- umm, some of my best friends are sinistral.

The context was that sirloin seemed to be asserting (maybe I
misunderstood) that civil rights should only be extended to a group if
a majority favors doing so.

I find that position (which maybe isn't really what he meant)
abhorrent.
Slice it anyway you want to, I see the arguments against equal rights for gays as coming down to one of two things (1) fear of that which is different, or (2) a belief that it is morally wrong to be gay and that those who act immorally should be punished (Often 1 masquerades as 2.) Rational argument has a hard time prevailing against either of those.

Yes, I agree with your analysis. And with the point about rational
argument. However when someone makes a cogent-sounding but fallacious
argument in public, I think it should be rebutted just in case it
accidentally convinces someone who was previously unconvinced.

Doug Anderson wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it).

And no one yet has described how it benefits the institution and society to do
this. (Still waiting on that one...)
I'm just going to say that illegally declaring anything you want a marriage demeans the institution. I'll buy that, but it seems irrelevant. And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites. Are you sure you want to make that statement? I'll retract it if I here another argument, but the ones I've heard so far center around: - slippery slope: If you allows gays to marry then soon anything can marry anything else (a commonly heard justification for miscegenation laws) and - it is important for children to be raised by one man and one woman (mirroring the "it's important for children to be raised by parents of the same 'race'" argument).

Geez, what kind of mirrors do you have in your house, Doug? Inquisitive
minds need to know.

Doug Anderson wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it).

And no one yet has described how it benefits the institution and society to do
this. (Still waiting on that one...)
I'm just going to say that illegally declaring anything you want a marriage demeans the institution. I'll buy that, but it seems irrelevant. And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites. Are you sure you want to make that statement? I'll retract it if I here another argument, but the ones I've heard so far center around: - slippery slope: If you allows gays to marry then soon anything can marry anything else (a commonly heard justification for miscegenation laws) and - it is important for children to be raised by one man and one woman (mirroring the "it's important for children to be raised by parents of the same 'race'" argument).

Geez, what kind of mirrors do you have in your house, Doug? Inquisitive
minds need to know.

Doug Anderson wrote:
Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls.

Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the
question at hand is the definition of marriage.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Doug Anderson wrote:
Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls.

Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the
question at hand is the definition of marriage.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Top Sirloin wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage.

Good point.

Top Sirloin wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage.

Good point.

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage.

You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court
_did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right.

Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on
whom one can marry.

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage.

You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court
_did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right.

Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on
whom one can marry.

On 18 Mar 2004 13:57:06 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it). I'm just going to say that illegally declaring anything you want a marriage demeans the institution. I'll buy that, but it seems irrelevant. And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites. Are you sure you want to make that statement? I'll retract it if I here another argument, but the ones I've heard so far center around: - slippery slope: If you allows gays to marry then soon anything can marry anything else (a commonly heard justification for miscegenation laws) and - it is important for children to be raised by one man and one woman (mirroring the "it's important for children to be raised by parents of the same 'race'" argument).

Only because you say so.
You've just added: - it is the law, so it doesn't matter if the law is just or respects the constitution, which was _also_ an argument raised in defense of miscegenation laws. So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons. I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but I want gays to come and make the argument to me in the public domain, A number of people have made eloquent arguments here in favor of allowing gay marriage. Do the arguments only count if they come from someone gay? It is pretty easy to find those arguments in the public domain at the current time.

They're only eloquent because you agree with them.
rather than forcing _their_ choice down my throat with activist courts. Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action." You're unfamiliar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That is a shining example of legislative action, for which LBJ deserves a great deal of credit. It would be wonderful to see leadership of that sort coming from elected officials today. Note however that it is a stark exception, and that legislative action has more often been used to withhold civil rights.

I know. Like the defense of marriage amendment of 2004.
Furthmore note the context in which it happened. It was after some dramatic cases of "judicial activism" which extended civil rights against minority wishes in the communities where this happened. Here are a few highlights: Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954) makes "separate but equal" illegal (judicial) Montgomery segregated buses (the Rosa Parks case) (1956) (judicial) Meredith v. Fair (1962) made it illegal for the University of Mississippi to refuse admission to qualified blacks. (judicial) Civil Rights Act (1964) (legislative). Loving v. State of Virginia (1967) finding laws banning interracial marriage unconsitutional. (judicial)>the same should happen to gay>marriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported by>a majority back in day, Whoa. Give me an example. "The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. It appeared that a vocal majority of churches, representatives and senators, and the nation favored civil rights legislation. The National Opinion Research Center discovered this change of attitude in a sample survey of northern whites in 1963. The Center determined that the number who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30% in twenty years, to 72% in 1963. The proportion favoring school integration had risen even more impressively to 75%. " I remain unconvinced. I suspect that a majority of northern whites favor gay marriage now too, but that isn't representative.

Of course you do. If God Almighty came down and told you that gay
marriage was bad for society you'd remain "unconvinced".
So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away that right? Surely you don't actually mean that! <sigh> Here, I can't say it any better than Den Beste: "Gays are not the only people who prevented from legally marrying those they love. California also does not recognize plural marriage, marriage to children, marriage to animals, and marriage to dead people. (You think I'm joking about that?) Sigh. Slippery slope argument. See above. If you are willing to bring non-adults or non-humans into the discussion then it is very hard to take you seriously.

No, just examples of other laws of the same ilk that I'm assuming you
agree with. (you haven't yet weighted in on dead people so I'm not really
sure).
Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or vote?

If you can get 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of states to go along with
it.

-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.

On 18 Mar 2004 13:57:06 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: But noone has described how gay marriage has any potential to "destroy the institution" (or even to damage it). I'm just going to say that illegally declaring anything you want a marriage demeans the institution. I'll buy that, but it seems irrelevant. And the arguments people propose against gay marriage mirror precisely the arguments that people proposed against allowing blacks to marry whites. Are you sure you want to make that statement? I'll retract it if I here another argument, but the ones I've heard so far center around: - slippery slope: If you allows gays to marry then soon anything can marry anything else (a commonly heard justification for miscegenation laws) and - it is important for children to be raised by one man and one woman (mirroring the "it's important for children to be raised by parents of the same 'race'" argument).

Only because you say so.
You've just added: - it is the law, so it doesn't matter if the law is just or respects the constitution, which was _also_ an argument raised in defense of miscegenation laws. So as far as I can tell, those opposed to gay marriage _are_ opposed to it out of bigotry. If they aren't, they sure can't come up with any actual reasons. I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but I want gays to come and make the argument to me in the public domain, A number of people have made eloquent arguments here in favor of allowing gay marriage. Do the arguments only count if they come from someone gay? It is pretty easy to find those arguments in the public domain at the current time.

They're only eloquent because you agree with them.
rather than forcing _their_ choice down my throat with activist courts. Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action." You're unfamiliar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That is a shining example of legislative action, for which LBJ deserves a great deal of credit. It would be wonderful to see leadership of that sort coming from elected officials today. Note however that it is a stark exception, and that legislative action has more often been used to withhold civil rights.

I know. Like the defense of marriage amendment of 2004.
Furthmore note the context in which it happened. It was after some dramatic cases of "judicial activism" which extended civil rights against minority wishes in the communities where this happened. Here are a few highlights: Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954) makes "separate but equal" illegal (judicial) Montgomery segregated buses (the Rosa Parks case) (1956) (judicial) Meredith v. Fair (1962) made it illegal for the University of Mississippi to refuse admission to qualified blacks. (judicial) Civil Rights Act (1964) (legislative). Loving v. State of Virginia (1967) finding laws banning interracial marriage unconsitutional. (judicial)>the same should happen to gay>marriage. However note that civil rights legislation was supported by>a majority back in day, Whoa. Give me an example. "The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. It appeared that a vocal majority of churches, representatives and senators, and the nation favored civil rights legislation. The National Opinion Research Center discovered this change of attitude in a sample survey of northern whites in 1963. The Center determined that the number who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30% in twenty years, to 72% in 1963. The proportion favoring school integration had risen even more impressively to 75%. " I remain unconvinced. I suspect that a majority of northern whites favor gay marriage now too, but that isn't representative.

Of course you do. If God Almighty came down and told you that gay
marriage was bad for society you'd remain "unconvinced".
So are you saying civil rights should only be extended when supported by a majority? If a majority feels that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, it would be ethical, legal and constitutional to take away that right? Surely you don't actually mean that! <sigh> Here, I can't say it any better than Den Beste: "Gays are not the only people who prevented from legally marrying those they love. California also does not recognize plural marriage, marriage to children, marriage to animals, and marriage to dead people. (You think I'm joking about that?) Sigh. Slippery slope argument. See above. If you are willing to bring non-adults or non-humans into the discussion then it is very hard to take you seriously.

No, just examples of other laws of the same ilk that I'm assuming you
agree with. (you haven't yet weighted in on dead people so I'm not really
sure).
Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. If a majority opposed civil rights for, say, left-handed people, would it be OK to deprive left-handed people of the right to own property or vote?

If you can get 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of states to go along with
it.

-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.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:38:54 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage. You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court _did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right. Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on whom one can marry.

Have you READ the case? Especially the majority opinion?

-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.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:38:54 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I asked a question about whether the majority should always determine who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage. You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court _did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right. Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on whom one can marry.

Have you READ the case? Especially the majority opinion?

-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 <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:38:54 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: > Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I > asked a question about whether the majority should always determine > who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to > animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage. You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court _did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right. Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on whom one can marry. Have you READ the case? Especially the majority opinion?

Yeah. Why?

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:38:54 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: > Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I > asked a question about whether the majority should always determine > who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to > animals and dolls. Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the question at hand is the definition of marriage. You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court _did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right. Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on whom one can marry. Have you READ the case? Especially the majority opinion?

Yeah. Why?

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:35:47 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:38:54 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> > Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I> > asked a question about whether the majority should always determine> > who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to> > animals and dolls.>> Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the> question at hand is the definition of marriage. You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court _did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right. Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on whom one can marry. Have you READ the case? Especially the majority opinion? Yeah. Why?

##
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
##

And "Skinner" states...

##
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very
existence and survival of the race.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
##

Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to
our very existnce and survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a
"gay marriage".

Take all the paper you need.

-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.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:35:47 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:38:54 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.kc.rr.com> writes:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> > Note by the way, that you've made no attempt to asnwer my question. I> > asked a question about whether the majority should always determine> > who gets civil rights, and you answered by bringing up marriage to> > animals and dolls.>> Yes I did. I explained that we're not talking about a civil right, the> question at hand is the definition of marriage. You might read Loving vs. State of Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court _did_ find marriage to be a fundamental right. Violated by laws placing restrictions (in that case due to race) on whom one can marry. Have you READ the case? Especially the majority opinion? Yeah. Why?

##
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
##

And "Skinner" states...

##
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very
existence and survival of the race.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
##

Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to
our very existnce and survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a
"gay marriage".

Take all the paper you need.

-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 <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:

## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541

That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basic
civil right. You and others have claimed it isn't.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival.

Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage is
fundamental to our existence or survival.
Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".

Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need more
biology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to be
married to a man to become pregnant!

Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage to
adopt.
Take all the paper you need.

I'm done!

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:

## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541

That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basic
civil right. You and others have claimed it isn't.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival.

Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage is
fundamental to our existence or survival.
Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".

Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need more
biology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to be
married to a man to become pregnant!

Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage to
adopt.
Take all the paper you need.

I'm done!

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: ## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basic civil right. You and others have claimed it isn't. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival. Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage is fundamental to our existence or survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage". Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need more biology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to be married to a man to become pregnant!

He said, "procreate". Do you know the meaning of that word? (There is
nothing about adoption, or test tube babies in here).

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: ## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basic civil right. You and others have claimed it isn't. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival. Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage is fundamental to our existence or survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage". Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need more biology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to be married to a man to become pregnant!

He said, "procreate". Do you know the meaning of that word? (There is
nothing about adoption, or test tube babies in here).

In article <cc4qsliyvk.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, I agree with your analysis. And with the point about rational argument. However when someone makes a cogent-sounding but fallacious argument in public, I think it should be rebutted just in case it accidentally convinces someone who was previously unconvinced.

Good point. Thanks for reminding us.

Ted

In article <cc4qsliyvk.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, I agree with your analysis. And with the point about rational argument. However when someone makes a cogent-sounding but fallacious argument in public, I think it should be rebutted just in case it accidentally convinces someone who was previously unconvinced.

Good point. Thanks for reminding us.

Ted

In article <slrnc5k1o2.16f.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller
<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
Because we might have children and it behooves us to be in a committed relationship for their sake and society's sake.

I assume then you will deny marriage licenses to any couple where the
woman is past menopause or either party has been diagnosed as
infertile.

Cut out the sophistry Tony and admit that you are prejudiced against
gays. Also admit that you haven't the slightest idea of what romantic
love, Eros, is all about, and how it is our human glimpse of Agape,
divine love.

Ted L.

In article <slrnc5k1o2.16f.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller
<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
Because we might have children and it behooves us to be in a committed relationship for their sake and society's sake.

I assume then you will deny marriage licenses to any couple where the
woman is past menopause or either party has been diagnosed as
infertile.

Cut out the sophistry Tony and admit that you are prejudiced against
gays. Also admit that you haven't the slightest idea of what romantic
love, Eros, is all about, and how it is our human glimpse of Agape,
divine love.

Ted L.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:51:34 GMT, Seeker
<anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <slrnc5k1o2.16f.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Because we might have children and it behooves us to be in a committed relationship for their sake and society's sake. I assume then you will deny marriage licenses to any couple where the woman is past menopause or either party has been diagnosed as infertile.

No Ted. We won't.
Cut out the sophistry Tony and admit that you are prejudiced against gays. Also admit that you haven't the slightest idea of what romantic love, Eros, is all about, and how it is our human glimpse of Agape, divine love.

Secular marriage has nothing to do with "love", Ted. People who hate each
other can get married.

-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.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:51:34 GMT, Seeker
<anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <slrnc5k1o2.16f.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Because we might have children and it behooves us to be in a committed relationship for their sake and society's sake. I assume then you will deny marriage licenses to any couple where the woman is past menopause or either party has been diagnosed as infertile.

No Ted. We won't.
Cut out the sophistry Tony and admit that you are prejudiced against gays. Also admit that you haven't the slightest idea of what romantic love, Eros, is all about, and how it is our human glimpse of Agape, divine love.

Secular marriage has nothing to do with "love", Ted. People who hate each
other can get married.

-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" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5kseg.560.tony@home.cigardiary.com...
## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".

I find it interesting, at least, that this opinion separated marriage and
procreation, listing both. It could have said, but did not, "procreation
within marriage is fundamental."

Ted

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5kseg.560.tony@home.cigardiary.com...
## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".

I find it interesting, at least, that this opinion separated marriage and
procreation, listing both. It could have said, but did not, "procreation
within marriage is fundamental."

Ted

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5m0el.645.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Secular marriage has nothing to do with "love", Ted. People who hate each other can get married.

Of course (although I can't figure out why anyone would.) And you would
deny that right to those who *do* love each other? How unloving of you.

Ted

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5m0el.645.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Secular marriage has nothing to do with "love", Ted. People who hate each other can get married.

Of course (although I can't figure out why anyone would.) And you would
deny that right to those who *do* love each other? How unloving of you.

Ted

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> wrote:
Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action." You're unfamiliar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Anti-miscegenation laws were overturned by the Supreme Court (see Loving
v. Virginia).

Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@tornadosaregood.planetkc.com> wrote:
Well yes if by "clarified by law" you mean "clarified by judicial action." You're unfamiliar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Anti-miscegenation laws were overturned by the Supreme Court (see Loving
v. Virginia).

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:39:53 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5m0el.645.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Secular marriage has nothing to do with "love", Ted. People who hate each other can get married. Of course (although I can't figure out why anyone would.) And you would deny that right to those who *do* love each other? How unloving of you.

I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot.

-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.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:37:05 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5kseg.560.tony@home.cigardiary.com... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage". I find it interesting, at least, that this opinion separated marriage and procreation, listing both. It could have said, but did not, "procreation within marriage is fundamental."

Sure, and if you like to twist words like that, you have a career
possibility on the SCOTUS. One of the things judges try to determine when
they look over this stuff is not only what they said, but what they
*meant*.

What do you think of: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"

Do you think the second amendment only applies to "a well regulated
militia"? Or does the amendment apply to everyone with "a well regulated
militia" being one of the promary reasons for the law?

-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.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:39:53 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5m0el.645.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Secular marriage has nothing to do with "love", Ted. People who hate each other can get married. Of course (although I can't figure out why anyone would.) And you would deny that right to those who *do* love each other? How unloving of you.

I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot.

-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.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:37:05 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5kseg.560.tony@home.cigardiary.com... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage". I find it interesting, at least, that this opinion separated marriage and procreation, listing both. It could have said, but did not, "procreation within marriage is fundamental."

Sure, and if you like to twist words like that, you have a career
possibility on the SCOTUS. One of the things judges try to determine when
they look over this stuff is not only what they said, but what they
*meant*.

What do you think of: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"

Do you think the second amendment only applies to "a well regulated
militia"? Or does the amendment apply to everyone with "a well regulated
militia" being one of the promary reasons for the law?

-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. wrote:
But still, marriage (to me) is something very special between a man and a woman, as part of the *natural* foundation for society.

There is nothing 'natural' about any foundation for society. In fact,
society, as you speak of it, is totally man-made, not natural at all.

Tracey

Bill in Co. wrote:
But still, marriage (to me) is something very special between a man and a woman, as part of the *natural* foundation for society.

There is nothing 'natural' about any foundation for society. In fact,
society, as you speak of it, is totally man-made, not natural at all.

Tracey

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5mia9.6bv.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Do you think the second amendment only applies to "a well regulated militia"? Or does the amendment apply to everyone with "a well regulated militia" being one of the promary reasons for the law?

I think you went to school after they taught people how to parse the English
language.

Ted

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5mia9.6bv.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Do you think the second amendment only applies to "a well regulated militia"? Or does the amendment apply to everyone with "a well regulated militia" being one of the promary reasons for the law?

I think you went to school after they taught people how to parse the English
language.

Ted

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:28:05 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5mia9.6bv.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Do you think the second amendment only applies to "a well regulated militia"? Or does the amendment apply to everyone with "a well regulated militia" being one of the promary reasons for the law? I think you went to school after they taught people how to parse the English language.

You didn't answer the question, Ted. How about it?

-Tony

PS: If you can't or won't answer you can always call names.

--
"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, 19 Mar 2004 14:28:05 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5mia9.6bv.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Do you think the second amendment only applies to "a well regulated militia"? Or does the amendment apply to everyone with "a well regulated militia" being one of the promary reasons for the law? I think you went to school after they taught people how to parse the English language.

You didn't answer the question, Ted. How about it?

-Tony

PS: If you can't or won't answer you can always call names.

--
"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" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5mpfr.6nn.tony@home.cigardiary.com... You didn't answer the question, Ted. How about it?

If you'd parse the two sentences in question you'd have your answer.

Ted

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5mpfr.6nn.tony@home.cigardiary.com... You didn't answer the question, Ted. How about it?

If you'd parse the two sentences in question you'd have your answer.

Ted

Tracey wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: But still, marriage (to me) is something very special between a man and a woman, as part of the *natural* foundation for society. There is nothing 'natural' about any foundation for society. In fact, society, as you speak of it, is totally man-made, not natural at all. Tracey

So...maybe, just maybe, that's why we're having all of these societal problems.

Tracey wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: But still, marriage (to me) is something very special between a man and a woman, as part of the *natural* foundation for society. There is nothing 'natural' about any foundation for society. In fact, society, as you speak of it, is totally man-made, not natural at all. Tracey

So...maybe, just maybe, that's why we're having all of these societal problems.

> ## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basiccivil right. You and others have claimed it isn't. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival.Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage isfundamental to our existence or survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need morebiology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to bemarried to a man to become pregnant!Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage toadopt. Take all the paper you need.I'm done!

When I read these exchanges, I'm reminded of my old friend Joe, a gay man with
a life partner, who together with a lesbian couple had two children together
(turkey baster method). :-)

The fact is, people can have children in and out of marriage, and that isn't
legislated. The other fact is, people can have a marriage and no children...
that isn't legislated either. I, personally, don't think the issue of children
has any relevance to this topic.

Sheila

> ## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basiccivil right. You and others have claimed it isn't. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival.Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage isfundamental to our existence or survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need morebiology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to bemarried to a man to become pregnant!Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage toadopt. Take all the paper you need.I'm done!

When I read these exchanges, I'm reminded of my old friend Joe, a gay man with
a life partner, who together with a lesbian couple had two children together
(turkey baster method). :-)

The fact is, people can have children in and out of marriage, and that isn't
legislated. The other fact is, people can have a marriage and no children...
that isn't legislated either. I, personally, don't think the issue of children
has any relevance to this topic.

Sheila

On 19 Mar 2004 23:49:19 GMT, WhansaMi
<whansami@aol.com> wrote: ## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basiccivil right. You and others have claimed it isn't. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival.Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage isfundamental to our existence or survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need morebiology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to bemarried to a man to become pregnant!Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage toadopt. Take all the paper you need.I'm done! When I read these exchanges, I'm reminded of my old friend Joe, a gay man with a life partner, who together with a lesbian couple had two children together (turkey baster method). :-)

Now isn't that special.
The fact is, people can have children in and out of marriage, and that isn't legislated. The other fact is, people can have a marriage and no children... that isn't legislated either. I, personally, don't think the issue of children has any relevance to this topic.

I think you don't have a clue what has relevance to this topic.

-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.

On 19 Mar 2004 23:49:19 GMT, WhansaMi
<whansami@aol.com> wrote: ## Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basiccivil right. You and others have claimed it isn't. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## And "Skinner" states... ## We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 ## Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to our very existnce and survival.Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage isfundamental to our existence or survival. Also, how "procreation" enters into a "gay marriage".Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need morebiology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to bemarried to a man to become pregnant!Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage toadopt. Take all the paper you need.I'm done! When I read these exchanges, I'm reminded of my old friend Joe, a gay man with a life partner, who together with a lesbian couple had two children together (turkey baster method). :-)

Now isn't that special.
The fact is, people can have children in and out of marriage, and that isn't legislated. The other fact is, people can have a marriage and no children... that isn't legislated either. I, personally, don't think the issue of children has any relevance to this topic.

I think you don't have a clue what has relevance to this topic.

-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.

>On 19 Mar 2004 23:49:19 GMT, WhansaMi<whansami@aol.com> wrote:> ##> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our> very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basiccivil right. You and others have claimed it isn't.> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1> ##>> And "Skinner" states...>> ##> We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basiccivil> rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very> existence and survival of the race.>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1> ##>> Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to> our very existnce and survival.Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage isfundamental to our existence or survival.> Also, how "procreation" enters into a> "gay marriage".Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need morebiology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to bemarried to a man to become pregnant!Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage toadopt.> Take all the paper you need.I'm done! When I read these exchanges, I'm reminded of my old friend Joe, a gay manwith a life partner, who together with a lesbian couple had two childrentogether (turkey baster method). :-)Now isn't that special. The fact is, people can have children in and out of marriage, and thatisn't legislated. The other fact is, people can have a marriage and nochildren... that isn't legislated either. I, personally, don't think the issue ofchildren has any relevance to this topic.I think you don't have a clue what has relevance to this topic.-Tony

Wow. That was... profound.

Seriously, tell me why the issue of children is relevant. Marriage is not a
license to have children. People have chosen to create -- or not create --
children independent of marital status. My husband and I married fully aware
that we would *not* have children together. Other people (such as Joe and
family) have children independent of marriage, and have legal rights according
to parental status, not marital status. I don't see where the issue of kids
comes into it at all, beyond your (personal) belief regarding what a family
should look like, which is not a good basis for the law.

Sheila

>On 19 Mar 2004 23:49:19 GMT, WhansaMi<whansami@aol.com> wrote:> ##> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our> very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541That is sort of the point. The case law describes marriage as a basiccivil right. You and others have claimed it isn't.> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1> ##>> And "Skinner" states...>> ##> We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basiccivil> rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very> existence and survival of the race.>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1> ##>> Then you might want to explain to me how "gay marriage" is fundamental to> our very existnce and survival.Why would I do that? I don't believe _any_ kind of marriage isfundamental to our existence or survival.> Also, how "procreation" enters into a> "gay marriage".Well, if you don't know how lesbians have children, then you need morebiology lessons than my kids. Guess what: you don't have to bemarried to a man to become pregnant!Gay men have a harder time having children, but some of them manage toadopt.> Take all the paper you need.I'm done! When I read these exchanges, I'm reminded of my old friend Joe, a gay manwith a life partner, who together with a lesbian couple had two childrentogether (turkey baster method). :-)Now isn't that special. The fact is, people can have children in and out of marriage, and thatisn't legislated. The other fact is, people can have a marriage and nochildren... that isn't legislated either. I, personally, don't think the issue ofchildren has any relevance to this topic.I think you don't have a clue what has relevance to this topic.-Tony

Wow. That was... profound.

Seriously, tell me why the issue of children is relevant. Marriage is not a
license to have children. People have chosen to create -- or not create --
children independent of marital status. My husband and I married fully aware
that we would *not* have children together. Other people (such as Joe and
family) have children independent of marriage, and have legal rights according
to parental status, not marital status. I don't see where the issue of kids
comes into it at all, beyond your (personal) belief regarding what a family
should look like, which is not a good basis for the law.

Sheila

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot.

We already knew that.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot.

We already knew that.

"Larry Kessler" <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote in message
news:k8sn50do2p01sb5bh1qk8shl026h6g8f42@4ax.com... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot. We already knew that.

I've seen worse bigots, by far.
You "live and let live", which is a good start.

But you frequently tell other people
that their opinions mean what you say they do.
(For example, what is or is not a marriage.)

(Why are we discussing gay marriage etc. here?
If it is to convince the other side, change their minds,
that probably won't happen.
Hoping to understand our own and each others beliefs
is more what I'm doing this for.)
--
Tsam

"Larry Kessler" <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote in message
news:k8sn50do2p01sb5bh1qk8shl026h6g8f42@4ax.com... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot. We already knew that.

I've seen worse bigots, by far.
You "live and let live", which is a good start.

But you frequently tell other people
that their opinions mean what you say they do.
(For example, what is or is not a marriage.)

(Why are we discussing gay marriage etc. here?
If it is to convince the other side, change their minds,
that probably won't happen.
Hoping to understand our own and each others beliefs
is more what I'm doing this for.)
--
Tsam

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:21:52 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot. We already knew that.

Sticks and stones... , Larry :)

-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.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:21:52 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:I guess I'm just an unloving, religious, homophobic bigot. We already knew that.

Sticks and stones... , Larry :)

-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.

"Larry Kessler" <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote in message
news:b9sn50hgqkqac3h9avurota7647c7lvbvk@4ax.com...
I can think of several benefits to society from permitting gay people to marry:

[one item from Larry's list]
4. It would be good for the formal-wear, floral, catering, photography, and hospitality industries. :-)

Here's a similar idea, totally off topic:

Last night I was joking with my