On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:29:32 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:08:05 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally about
>>> protecting children.
>>
>> Says you.
>>
>> If you want to be pedantic about it, to begin with it was about
>> dividing and combining property.
>>
>>> It is not a means of giving rights to spouses
>>
>> Much of it absolutely is.
>>
>>
>>> whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
>>> separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
>>> children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
>>> outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is provided
>>> by law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL so called
>>> rights from marriage should be because they benefit children--not
>>> sexual partners.
>>
>> You can imagine what your opinion is worth to someone who's told they
>> can't make the same legal commitment to another that you can.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage licenses
>>> and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal is
>>> possible. If children result from the marriage, the license becomes
>>> permanent. Anything else, including civil unions among two or more
>>> adults can be handled by contract law.
>>
>> Close. It can *all* be handled by contract law. Either everyone has
>> to do it that way, or nobody should be forced to.
>>
>>
> Including siblings?

Two siblings can certainly draw up papers assigning one another medical
proxy decisions, estate details. If they share a home they can include
the details of who owes what portion of the mortgage, and agree
beforehand who's to keep the house (and its contents) if they part ways.

The only thing that's left is the marriage tax benefit (which is crap
IMO).

There's no reason to call it "marriage" except to put a government stamp
on a religious ceremony.

My academic, laboratory opinion of marriage is that government shouldn't
be involved in it at all. There should be some ceremony (the marriage)
with no legally binding ramifications, and then a civil contract that
goes hand in hand with it, with all the legal/secular responsibilities.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:34:27 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:31:52 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether
>>> gays or religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on
>>> their issue. Simple enough, even for you.
>>
>> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
>> or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal,
>> or practical reason against *** marriage.
>>
>> I'm actually glad to see that the tactic is shifting from opposing ***
>> marriage itself to the running-scared strategy of warning that the sky
>> will fall if these people are allowed what they're entitled to.
>
> Because we have already worn the path ragged with all of the direct
> reasons that gays shouldn't be allowed to call their "unions" marriage.

So you've moved from the direct, relevant reasons you've had sucess with
and moved instead to the tangential, FUD reasons ... because the first
set made so much sense? Sure.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:29:32 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>
>> "KK" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:08:05 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally about
>>>> protecting children.
>>>
>>> Says you.
>>>
>>> If you want to be pedantic about it, to begin with it was about
>>> dividing and combining property.
>>>
>>>> It is not a means of giving rights to spouses
>>>
>>> Much of it absolutely is.
>>>
>>>
>>>> whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
>>>> separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
>>>> children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
>>>> outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is provided
>>>> by law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL so called
>>>> rights from marriage should be because they benefit children--not
>>>> sexual partners.
>>>
>>> You can imagine what your opinion is worth to someone who's told they
>>> can't make the same legal commitment to another that you can.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage licenses
>>>> and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal is
>>>> possible. If children result from the marriage, the license becomes
>>>> permanent. Anything else, including civil unions among two or more
>>>> adults can be handled by contract law.
>>>
>>> Close. It can *all* be handled by contract law. Either everyone has
>>> to do it that way, or nobody should be forced to.
>>>
>>>
>> Including siblings?
>
> Two siblings can certainly draw up papers assigning one another medical
> proxy decisions, estate details. If they share a home they can include
> the details of who owes what portion of the mortgage, and agree
> beforehand who's to keep the house (and its contents) if they part ways.
>
> The only thing that's left is the marriage tax benefit (which is crap
> IMO).


Why should they be subjected to go through all of the extra steps that other
married people don't have to go through.


>
> There's no reason to call it "marriage" except to put a government stamp
> on a religious ceremony.
>
> My academic, laboratory opinion of marriage is that government shouldn't
> be involved in it at all. There should be some ceremony (the marriage)
> with no legally binding ramifications, and then a civil contract that
> goes hand in hand with it, with all the legal/secular responsibilities.

The ceremony is actually a contract between the man and the woman separate
from all of the financial aspects. It's a verbal agreement to a lifelong
commitment to be faithful and stand by each other's side. There is nothing
religious about that concept.

Just an aside, I was married at Rolling Hills country club where they filmed
Caddy Shack, a movie that was released the year my wife and I started
dating.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:34:27 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>
>> "KK" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:31:52 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether
>>>> gays or religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on
>>>> their issue. Simple enough, even for you.
>>>
>>> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
>>> or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal,
>>> or practical reason against *** marriage.
>>>
>>> I'm actually glad to see that the tactic is shifting from opposing ***
>>> marriage itself to the running-scared strategy of warning that the sky
>>> will fall if these people are allowed what they're entitled to.
>>
>> Because we have already worn the path ragged with all of the direct
>> reasons that gays shouldn't be allowed to call their "unions" marriage.
>
> So you've moved from the direct, relevant reasons you've had sucess with
> and moved instead to the tangential, FUD reasons ... because the first
> set made so much sense? Sure.

Do you find it productive to repeat yourself day in and day out on usenet?
I mean, it may be, but what fun is that?

I've argued that it's a gravy grab for job benefits.
I've argued that it's not a marriage.
I've argued that they don't have special rights based on who they have sex
with.
I've argued that they have an agenda.

My opinion hasn't changed on any of that. Or should I say, no one has
presented me with an argument that has changed my perspective.

One thing I have changed my mind about is that I believe that there are some
gays that didn't choose to be ***. I still maintain that there are a large
number of people out there that made a conscious decision to be ***, but I
concede that there are a number of cases that didn't make a choice. I'm
quite sure that the ones that made the choice to be *** could make the
choice to be straight again, I'm not so sure about the ones that didn't
choose.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:43:04 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:29:32 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:08:05 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally
>>>>> about protecting children.
>>>>
>>>> Says you.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to be pedantic about it, to begin with it was about
>>>> dividing and combining property.
>>>>
>>>>> It is not a means of giving rights to spouses
>>>>
>>>> Much of it absolutely is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
>>>>> separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
>>>>> children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
>>>>> outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is
>>>>> provided by law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL
>>>>> so called rights from marriage should be because they benefit
>>>>> children--not sexual partners.
>>>>
>>>> You can imagine what your opinion is worth to someone who's told they
>>>> can't make the same legal commitment to another that you can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage
>>>>> licenses and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal
>>>>> is possible. If children result from the marriage, the license
>>>>> becomes permanent. Anything else, including civil unions among two
>>>>> or more adults can be handled by contract law.
>>>>
>>>> Close. It can *all* be handled by contract law. Either everyone has
>>>> to do it that way, or nobody should be forced to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Including siblings?
>>
>> Two siblings can certainly draw up papers assigning one another medical
>> proxy decisions, estate details. If they share a home they can include
>> the details of who owes what portion of the mortgage, and agree
>> beforehand who's to keep the house (and its contents) if they part
>> ways.
>>
>> The only thing that's left is the marriage tax benefit (which is crap
>> IMO).
>
>
> Why should they be subjected to go through all of the extra steps that
> other married people don't have to go through.


I said above that *all* "marriages" can be handled by contract law. All
those things (and anything else they'd like) can be specified in the fine
print - for siblings, *** couples, straight couples.


>> There's no reason to call it "marriage" except to put a government
>> stamp on a religious ceremony.
>>
>> My academic, laboratory opinion of marriage is that government
>> shouldn't be involved in it at all. There should be some ceremony (the
>> marriage) with no legally binding ramifications, and then a civil
>> contract that goes hand in hand with it, with all the legal/secular
>> responsibilities.
>
> The ceremony is actually a contract between the man and the woman
> separate from all of the financial aspects. It's a verbal agreement to
> a lifelong commitment to be faithful and stand by each other's side.
> There is nothing religious about that concept.


And there's nothing "legal" about "standing by each other's side". And
the "faithful" part can certainly be part of the contract.


>
> Just an aside, I was married at Rolling Hills country club where they
> filmed Caddy Shack, a movie that was released the year my wife and I
> started dating.

That's awesome!

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:48:26 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:34:27 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:31:52 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether
>>>>> gays or religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on
>>>>> their issue. Simple enough, even for you.
>>>>
>>>> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also
>>>> - or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral,
>>>> legal, or practical reason against *** marriage.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually glad to see that the tactic is shifting from opposing
>>>> *** marriage itself to the running-scared strategy of warning that
>>>> the sky will fall if these people are allowed what they're entitled
>>>> to.
>>>
>>> Because we have already worn the path ragged with all of the direct
>>> reasons that gays shouldn't be allowed to call their "unions"
>>> marriage.
>>
>> So you've moved from the direct, relevant reasons you've had sucess
>> with and moved instead to the tangential, FUD reasons ... because the
>> first set made so much sense? Sure.
>
> Do you find it productive to repeat yourself day in and day out on
> usenet? I mean, it may be, but what fun is that?

It's just unusual to retreat from a solid argument to a weaker one,
that's all.



>
> I've argued that it's a gravy grab for job benefits. I've argued that
> it's not a marriage. I've argued that they don't have special rights
> based on who they have sex with.
> I've argued that they have an agenda.


And those are good reasons for you not to like it or agree with its
morality as it applies to yours, but no reason to legally refuse them.


>
> My opinion hasn't changed on any of that. Or should I say, no one has
> presented me with an argument that has changed my perspective.
>
> One thing I have changed my mind about is that I believe that there are
> some gays that didn't choose to be ***. I still maintain that there are
> a large number of people out there that made a conscious decision to be
> ***, but I concede that there are a number of cases that didn't make a
> choice. I'm quite sure that the ones that made the choice to be ***
> could make the choice to be straight again, I'm not so sure about the
> ones that didn't choose.

Well, it's intellectually honest of you to mention that. I haven't seen
much of that here coming from anyone other than you or me.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:31:52 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>
>
>> Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether gays
>> or religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on their
>> issue. Simple enough, even for you.
>
> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
> or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal, or
> practical reason against *** marriage.

I am not against *** marriage. What I am against are the tactics being used
to achieve a goal, those tactics including, but not limited to,
intimidation, efforts to curtail the rights of others, and the attempted
implementation of social change through our school systems. To me that makes
many of them no different from the religious zealots they purportedly
dislike. But of course they don't see it that way because their rights are
more important than anyone elses.

>
> I'm actually glad to see that the tactic is shifting from opposing ***
> marriage itself to the running-scared strategy of warning that the sky
> will fall if these people are allowed what they're entitled to.
>

"tar~bal" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:34:27 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:31:52 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether
>>>>> gays or religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on
>>>>> their issue. Simple enough, even for you.
>>>>
>>>> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
>>>> or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal,
>>>> or practical reason against *** marriage.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually glad to see that the tactic is shifting from opposing ***
>>>> marriage itself to the running-scared strategy of warning that the sky
>>>> will fall if these people are allowed what they're entitled to.
>>>
>>> Because we have already worn the path ragged with all of the direct
>>> reasons that gays shouldn't be allowed to call their "unions" marriage.
>>
>> So you've moved from the direct, relevant reasons you've had sucess with
>> and moved instead to the tangential, FUD reasons ... because the first
>> set made so much sense? Sure.
>
> Do you find it productive to repeat yourself day in and day out on usenet?
> I mean, it may be, but what fun is that?
>
> I've argued that it's a gravy grab for job benefits.

Doesn't make sense. Most of those benefits are already available under
domestic partner statutes.


> I've argued that it's not a marriage.

It is to them.

> I've argued that they don't have special rights based on who they have sex
> with.

Then why should anyone else?

> I've argued that they have an agenda.

Don't we all?

>
> My opinion hasn't changed on any of that. Or should I say, no one has
> presented me with an argument that has changed my perspective.
>
> One thing I have changed my mind about is that I believe that there are
> some gays that didn't choose to be ***. I still maintain that there are a
> large number of people out there that made a conscious decision to be ***,
> but I concede that there are a number of cases that didn't make a choice.
> I'm quite sure that the ones that made the choice to be *** could make the
> choice to be straight again, I'm not so sure about the ones that didn't
> choose.
>

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:38:34 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:

>> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
>> or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal,
>> or practical reason against *** marriage.
>
> I am not against *** marriage. What I am against are the tactics being
> used to achieve a goal, those tactics including, but not limited to,
> intimidation, efforts to curtail the rights of others, and the attempted
> implementation of social change through our school systems.

Great. I'm against all those things too.


> To me that
> makes many of them no different from the religious zealots they
> purportedly dislike. But of course they don't see it that way because
> their rights are more important than anyone elses.

The particular right we're talking about doesn't infringe on anyone
elses, though.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:38:34 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>
>>> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
>>> or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal,
>>> or practical reason against *** marriage.
>>
>> I am not against *** marriage. What I am against are the tactics being
>> used to achieve a goal, those tactics including, but not limited to,
>> intimidation, efforts to curtail the rights of others, and the attempted
>> implementation of social change through our school systems.
>
> Great. I'm against all those things too.
>
>
>> To me that
>> makes many of them no different from the religious zealots they
>> purportedly dislike. But of course they don't see it that way because
>> their rights are more important than anyone elses.
>
> The particular right we're talking about doesn't infringe on anyone
> elses, though.

I agree. But it is the way they are trying to claim those rights that I have
a problem with (the afore-mentioned intimidation, efforts to curtail the
rights of others, and the attempted implementation of social change thought
our school systems).

In article >,
Mr. Strat > wrote:
>In article >, Tim
>McNamara > wrote:
>
>> Why do they hate the Constitution?
>
>Why do you liberals continually subvert the constitution by going
>through the courts to get your agenda passed rather than through the
>legislative process.

Apparently a number of copies of the US Constitution were printed
lacking Article III. You seem to have gotten one of them. Better
replace it.


--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:21:06 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >, Mr. Strat
> > wrote:
>>In article >, Tim McNamara
> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do they hate the Constitution?
>>
>>Why do you liberals continually subvert the constitution by going
>>through the courts to get your agenda passed rather than through the
>>legislative process.
>
> Apparently a number of copies of the US Constitution were printed
> lacking Article III. You seem to have gotten one of them. Better
> replace it.

Is that the part with judicial review? Let's see it.

KK wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:21:06 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >, Mr. Strat
>> > wrote:
>>> In article >, Tim McNamara
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do they hate the Constitution?
>>> Why do you liberals continually subvert the constitution by going
>>> through the courts to get your agenda passed rather than through the
>>> legislative process.
>> Apparently a number of copies of the US Constitution were printed
>> lacking Article III. You seem to have gotten one of them. Better
>> replace it.
>
> Is that the part with judicial review? Let's see it.

Try reading Article VI. Or the Federalist. Or Edward Coke. Or just try
explaining what a bill of rights is good for if traitors can just
override it.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naïve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:30:54 -0500, John W Kennedy wrote:

> KK wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:21:06 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Mr. Strat
>>> > wrote:
>>>> In article >, Tim
>>>> McNamara > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do they hate the Constitution?
>>>> Why do you liberals continually subvert the constitution by going
>>>> through the courts to get your agenda passed rather than through the
>>>> legislative process.
>>> Apparently a number of copies of the US Constitution were printed
>>> lacking Article III. You seem to have gotten one of them. Better
>>> replace it.
>>
>> Is that the part with judicial review? Let's see it.
>
> Try reading Article VI. Or the Federalist. Or Edward Coke. Or just try
> explaining what a bill of rights is good for if traitors can just
> override it.

Oh, I'm a firm believer in judicial review. It was just stupid to point
to a part of the Constitution that doesn't refer to what we're talking
about.

[follow-ups set]

tar~bal >:

> WWJD?

The NT isn't exactly a model of consistency, but according
to 1 Cor. 7:1 and Matt. 19:12 Jesus teaches against the
practice of heterosexuality ("It is good for a man not to touch
a woman") and approves of those people "which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," accepting
marriage only as a concession to human weakness. In Luke
20:34-36 (though not its milder parallels) he goes even
further, arguing that marriage belongs to "the children of this
world," not to "the children of the resurrection" (also
called "the children of God") worthy of a place in the world to
come.

Jesus is similarly critical of the natural family, as he's
pictured in the Gospels: he teaches to "call no man your
father upon the earth" (Matt. 23:9), rejects his mother and his
brothers (Matt. 12:47-50), and makes hatred of life and
family a prerequisite for discipleship. (Luke 14:26.) So much
for normality.

-- Catawumpus