Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
David J. Allen
"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e0b6360c607b33e1...@news.teranews.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:21:36 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
children)
> >serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
providing
> >a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> >society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> >couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
serves
> >no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
marriage
> >for childless couples.
>
> Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
> childless couple add to society?
>
It's a general, macro principle, so one doesn't choke on the exceptions.
But since you asked, childless couples don't add to society in that manner.
When they die, that's it. That's not to say they don't contribute to
society, of course they can and do. But that's not the issue here.
> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> >gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end
or
> >purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
> >marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what
you
> >marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to
society.
> >This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
> What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
> for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
> an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
> than a gay couple does.
Well, I think you're right in the sense that gays shouldn't have to walk
down the street in fear of being attacked by gay bashers or have to go into
a gay section in a restaurant and such. But I think it's a mistake to
equate the rights and responsibilities of marriage to civil rights, which is
what this effort is all about. It would change what marriage is and means
in general in our society. From an insitution to protect and nurture our
future generations to a benefits bonanza. Heck, the benefits of marriage
aren't even "rights" for straights. It's a choice we make as a society for
the benefit of society to treat marriage as we do. I don't suppose there's
anything in the constitution that says people have rights to the benefits of
marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:e0b6360c607b33e1...@news.teranews.com...
>> Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
>> childless couple add to society?
>>
>
>It's a general, macro principle, so one doesn't choke on the exceptions.
>But since you asked, childless couples don't add to society in that manner.
>When they die, that's it. That's not to say they don't contribute to
>society, of course they can and do. But that's not the issue here.
A childless couple will contribute to society exactly the same way
that a gay couple will. I've known many childless couples that I use
as an example of how to live my life since they were some of the most
loving couples that I know. They have contributed significantly to
the families and friends that they have associated with. I know
several gay couples who fall into this same category.
>> What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
>> for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
>> an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
>> than a gay couple does.
>
>Well, I think you're right in the sense that gays shouldn't have to walk
>down the street in fear of being attacked by gay bashers or have to go into
>a gay section in a restaurant and such. But I think it's a mistake to
>equate the rights and responsibilities of marriage to civil rights, which is
>what this effort is all about. It would change what marriage is and means
>in general in our society. From an insitution to protect and nurture our
>future generations to a benefits bonanza. Heck, the benefits of marriage
>aren't even "rights" for straights. It's a choice we make as a society for
>the benefit of society to treat marriage as we do. I don't suppose there's
>anything in the constitution that says people have rights to the benefits of
>marriage.
Marriage isn't a benefits bonanza, that's what divorce is for! Given
the casual nature people are approaching marriage with these days it
doesn't appear to have a lot of value, does it?
What it boils down to is this: If someone wants to take marriage
seriously, they will. If they don't, they won't. Allowing gays the
right to be legally married doesn't detract at all from the ability of
those who wish to take marriage seriously to do so.
David J. Allen
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:32:10 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:e0b6360c607b33e1...@news.teranews.com...
>
> >> Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
> >> childless couple add to society?
> >>
> >
> >It's a general, macro principle, so one doesn't choke on the exceptions.
> >But since you asked, childless couples don't add to society in that
manner.
> >When they die, that's it. That's not to say they don't contribute to
> >society, of course they can and do. But that's not the issue here.
>
> A childless couple will contribute to society exactly the same way
> that a gay couple will. I've known many childless couples that I use
> as an example of how to live my life since they were some of the most
> loving couples that I know. They have contributed significantly to
> the families and friends that they have associated with. I know
> several gay couples who fall into this same category.
>
I did try to point out that this wasn't the issue. The fact that people
contribute to society by their good will and good works isn't what we're
talking about.
> >> What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
> >> for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
> >> an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
> >> than a gay couple does.
> >
> >Well, I think you're right in the sense that gays shouldn't have to walk
> >down the street in fear of being attacked by gay bashers or have to go
into
> >a gay section in a restaurant and such. But I think it's a mistake to
> >equate the rights and responsibilities of marriage to civil rights, which
is
> >what this effort is all about. It would change what marriage is and
means
> >in general in our society. From an insitution to protect and nurture our
> >future generations to a benefits bonanza. Heck, the benefits of marriage
> >aren't even "rights" for straights. It's a choice we make as a society
for
> >the benefit of society to treat marriage as we do. I don't suppose
there's
> >anything in the constitution that says people have rights to the benefits
of
> >marriage.
>
> Marriage isn't a benefits bonanza, that's what divorce is for! Given
> the casual nature people are approaching marriage with these days it
> doesn't appear to have a lot of value, does it?
>
There's no doubt about that. But the existence of people like that doesn't
mean the institution is dead or meaningless. There's plenty of people out
there who don't fit that description.
> What it boils down to is this: If someone wants to take marriage
> seriously, they will. If they don't, they won't. Allowing gays the
> right to be legally married doesn't detract at all from the ability of
> those who wish to take marriage seriously to do so.
> --
Individually? No. Heck I don't even know who's legally married or not on my
street. For all I know the little old lady down the street with all her
cats... oh never mind. But it DOES matter how we as a society in general
regard marriage and family and how we treat the institution. Redefining
marriage to fit the gay activist agenda opens a door to others similarly
agendized. After all, would "civil rights" apply only to traditional
straights and traditional gays?
Daniel J. Stern
> childless couples don't add to society in that manner.
> When they die, that's it. That's not to say they don't contribute to
> society, of course they can and do. But that's not the issue here.
That's the only option for this argument...unless you're being
disingenuous about it.
> Well, I think you're right in the sense that gays shouldn't have to walk
> down the street in fear of being attacked by gay bashers or have to go into
> a gay section in a restaurant and such.
Gracious, how magnanimous and progressive of you.
> But I think it's a mistake to equate the rights and responsibilities of
> marriage to civil rights
The rights and responsibilities of marriage are codified, granted and
enforced by society. That, by definition, makes them civil rights and
civil responsibilities. Some people believe there are additional rights
and responsibilities codified, granted and enforced by their god; these
are separate from the civil rights and civil responsibilities.
> From an insitution to protect and nurture our future generations to a
> benefits bonanza.
...except for childless couples, who are just an exception to the rule and
therefore don't really change the principle UNLESS they happen to be
childless GAY couples, in which case they're a dealbreaker.
Here's a nice 1/2" wrench to throw into the works: Gay couples WITH
children.
> Heck, the benefits of marriage aren't even "rights" for straights.
> It's a choice we make as a society for the benefit of society to treat
> marriage as we do.
You've just defined "civil rights".
> I don't suppose there's anything in the constitution that says people
> have rights to the benefits of marriage.
Not all civil rights flow from the Constitution. And of those that do, not
all of them are individually enumerated in the Constitution.
DS
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:2cb41897b60a5d6d...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:32:10 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> A childless couple will contribute to society exactly the same way
>> that a gay couple will. I've known many childless couples that I use
>> as an example of how to live my life since they were some of the most
>> loving couples that I know. They have contributed significantly to
>> the families and friends that they have associated with. I know
>> several gay couples who fall into this same category.
>>
>I did try to point out that this wasn't the issue. The fact that people
>contribute to society by their good will and good works isn't what we're
>talking about.
Hey, you're the one that brought up the child raising aspect of
marriage, not me.
>> Marriage isn't a benefits bonanza, that's what divorce is for! Given
>> the casual nature people are approaching marriage with these days it
>> doesn't appear to have a lot of value, does it?
>>
>
>There's no doubt about that. But the existence of people like that doesn't
>mean the institution is dead or meaningless. There's plenty of people out
>there who don't fit that description.
Yeah, about half of them if the stats are correct! ;)
>> What it boils down to is this: If someone wants to take marriage
>> seriously, they will. If they don't, they won't. Allowing gays the
>> right to be legally married doesn't detract at all from the ability of
>> those who wish to take marriage seriously to do so.
>
>Individually? No. Heck I don't even know who's legally married or not on my
>street. For all I know the little old lady down the street with all her
>cats... oh never mind. But it DOES matter how we as a society in general
>regard marriage and family and how we treat the institution. Redefining
>marriage to fit the gay activist agenda opens a door to others similarly
>agendized. After all, would "civil rights" apply only to traditional
>straights and traditional gays?
What will happen when we give women the right to vote? Or allow them
to work outside the home? Imagine how negatively that will affect
society! Oh, wait, I'm getting my decades mixed up.
The way I see it, all we're allowing is two people who love each other
who happen to be of the same sex to enjoy the same legal status as you
and your wife. That's it.
--
C. E. White
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> What will happen when we give women the right to vote? Or allow them
> to work outside the home? Imagine how negatively that will affect
> society! Oh, wait, I'm getting my decades mixed up.
>
> The way I see it, all we're allowing is two people who love each other
> who happen to be of the same sex to enjoy the same legal status as you
> and your wife. That's it.
No problem, implement the social change in the same manner women were
given the right to vote. Pass a law, don't redine the long understood
legal meaning of marriage by having an agreeable judge declare the
meaning of the word has been changed. I liked Lloyd's suggestion (a
first?) - eliminate the word "marriage" from all statues and replace it
with the term "civil union." Leave the word marriage to the churches and
let them define it the way they want.
Ed
Bill Putney
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> ...except for childless couples, who are just an exception to the rule and
> therefore don't really change the principle UNLESS they happen to be
> childless GAY couples, in which case they're a dealbreaker.
>
> Here's a nice 1/2" wrench to throw into the works: Gay couples WITH
> children.
(With the exception of cloning which is not available to us yet - but
that's a whole other can of worms) A gay couple can't have children
(adoption excluded). If there is a gay "couple", for there to be a
biologically derived kid, there has to be direct or indirect biological
opposite-sex interaction. Two people of the same sex (a gay "couple")
cannot biologically have a child.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Brandon Sommerville
You do realize that people will continue to call it marriage despite
what the technical term is. It will mean the exact same thing for
those people as well.
Right now you're just bothered by semantics.
C. E. White
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> You do realize that people will continue to call it marriage despite
> what the technical term is. It will mean the exact same thing for
> those people as well.
>
> Right now you're just bothered by semantics.
No I am bothered by judges changing laws by deciding to reinterpert
words or phrases. What people call something doesn't bother me. What
bothers me is having laws changed by judicial fiat.
Ed