On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:

> Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Most of the first world disagrees with you.

> there is proof it is not genetic.

Oh? Go ahead and provide it, then.

T-H-X, DTJ...the audience is listening.

DS

 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > > is too.
> > >
> > > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > > remember?
> >
> >
> > So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> > have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> > against those others.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> DS

Heh heh! Good point - I assumed...

But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog, my
cat, my tree, my car, my daughter, my mother...), then it makes it
appear that, truly, you just want to totally gut the institution and any
meaning of the word "marriage". That does appear to be the goal of
some.

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! =-----
 


Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > the Religious Reich types.
> >
> > Very Lloyd-like.
>
> *shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
> who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
> those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
>
> > > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
>
> > Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> > activities.
>
> People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
> doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
> usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
> behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
> respectively.
>
> Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
> sex is an expression of love while all homosexual sex is simply an
> "activity"...are you?

No, but neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice. I
just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.

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! =-----
 


Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> > ridiculous according to
>
> ...you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
> tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
> probably within yours, as well.
>
> DS

My concience will be clear before God. It will all be sorted out in the
end.

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! =-----
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice.

Oh, indubitably. For all recorded history, some people have been
*choosing* to get ostracized (at best) and violently killed (at worst) by
their families and society at large. Fer sher, fer sher.

> I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.

....which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".

DS

 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> > > So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> > > have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> > > against those others.

> > Are you sure?

> But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog

Whoops, that wasn't part of the question. We were discussing consenting
adults.

Try again?

DS

 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:06:44 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>> How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
>> between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>>
>Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation
>*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
>marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to re-evaluate
>the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.

Why is re-evalution bad? The current model is failing badly at the
moment, unless you consider a 50% failure rate to be a success.

>> Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
>> agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
>> left-handed...
>>
>If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
>abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
>Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and what's
>his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal works
>both ways.

If people were truly colour blind then those institutions would have
no purpose and would disappear. Racism occurs on both sides,
unfortunately.

>Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
>at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
>redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.

Two people formally agreeing to an exclusive arrangement. Sounds
pretty similar to me.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.

There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
gays from marrying?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"C. E. White" wrote:
>
>> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
>Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.

Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:58:24 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>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.

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.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>> >
>> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
>> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
>> >sex unions is not discrimination.
>> >
>> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
>> discrimination?
>
>Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:18:54 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:22:36 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>You can always pay for more care here, if you want a chiropractor or
>>you want to go to some sort of therapist or something along those
>>lines. What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the head of the
>>line because you've got more disposable income if you need or want a
>>non-critical procedure.
>
>Really?
>So your health system is non-competitive, in the sense that doctors
>can't work outside the system?

Not that I'm aware of, unless they want to work for free.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:51:16 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:8170e4c810deaf732ac373b4a63f687c@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>>
>> You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>
>For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
>distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on the
>traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
>Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view though.

We're already in the long run now. With divorce rates as high as they
are, marriage has apparently lost whatever sacred aspect there was to
it to society in general.

>> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
>> relationships don't count?
>
>I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean anything
>legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any legal
>obligations or rights to step children.

They provide a stable environment for those kids to grow up in.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>> the topic.
>
>But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
>ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
>marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
>doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
>as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.

Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
status as a human?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:29:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:beb825a8ecf1d3432a7e0a25f00dd235@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:dec265a9d8c5cf0fe2add7ae9b9955db@news.teranews.com...
>>
>> >> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
>> >> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
>> >> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
>> >> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
>> >> together happily for an extended period.
>> >>
>> >By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
>>
>> Again, what's wrong with this?
>
>Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't discriminate
>amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.
>
>Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for any
>civil right it satisfies.

And that benefit is children, right? Which brings us back to couples
who can't or don't want to have children. It also leads us to the
question of what is better for kids? An unhappy marriage between a
man and a woman or a happy relationship between two men or two women?
As long as they learn how to love someone else, it doesn't matter the
sex of that person.
>>
>> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
>>
>No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.

Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
not god (which god anyways?).

>The left
>loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights of
>life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
>libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
>shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government to
>provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
>responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
>government.

If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
idea itself.

>> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
>> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
>> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
>>
>Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union whose
>purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
>marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.

Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.

>BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's debatable
>that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
>gender. Is that necessarily good?

Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
life partner is?

>> What do you consider to be true civil rights?
>
>I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble, congregate,
>vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.
>
>The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government can
>regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
>can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
>compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.). There's our
>argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we can
>no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage from
>occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it to
>other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If it's a
>reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will tolerate.
>If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the people
>will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.

The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
what people should be doing.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
> Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
> the Religious Reich types.
>
> Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?

Strawman. The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
defined by the activities the individual engages in.

 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> > > > have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> > > > against those others.
>
> > > Are you sure?
>
> > But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog
>
> Whoops, that wasn't part of the question. We were discussing consenting
> adults.
>
> Try again?
>
> DS

My previous posts that you responded to were about those other things.
The issue I was discussing was the changing of the definiton of marriage
to satisfy everyone's desires - since you didn't indicate otherwise, I
assumed that you were continuing along those lines. You claim
discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could claim that
you would want to discriminate against them because you would exlude
non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those humans that
wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.

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! =-----
 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice.
>
> Oh, indubitably. For all recorded history, some people have been
> *choosing* to get ostracized (at best) and violently killed (at worst) by
> their families and society at large. Fer sher, fer sher.
>
> > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
>
> ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".

Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
with.

Look - obviously we'll never agree. We both choose what we want to
believe, and we live with the consequences of our choices. When it
comes down to it, you'll vote for and support people and causes that you
believe in, same for me, and on each one, one of us will probably not be
very happy with the outcome and claim that the other's beliefs and
actions are adversely affecting the other's life, nation, rights,
children, grandchildren, etc. In the whole scheme of things, this is
all very temporary. I believe in long term. Again: choices and
consequences. Let's talk again in a few thousand years.

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! =-----
 


"Larry St. Regis" wrote:

>
> Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
> allows partners OF THE SAME SEX to register their relationship. In most
> "progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
> eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
> The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE sex partners do not
> get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
> before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
> partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
> married". Hmmph.

So much for equal treatment!

 
Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>
> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> gays from marrying?

Only if the siblings are opposite sex & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
9K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
54K
Alibro
Alibro